tavily_research

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: a rate limit ('20 requests per minute') and the types of sources included ('web pages, documents, and other resources'). It does not contradict annotations and gives extra value beyond them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded and usage guidance follows. The rate limit sentence is useful. The return-value sentence is somewhat redundant with the output schema, but the overall length is reasonable at four sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only research tool, the combination of schema, annotations, and output schema covers most aspects. The description adds usage guidance, rate limit, and source scope. It lacks an explicit comparison to sibling tools, but the core context is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%; both 'input' and 'model' are already described in detail in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Perform comprehensive research') and target ('given topic or question'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'multiple sources' and comprehensive synthesis. This differentiates it from tavily_search, tavily_extract, tavily_crawl, and tavily_map.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use this tool when you need to gather information from multiple sources... to answer a question or complete a task.' This gives a clear usage context, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'multiple sources' hint implies a distinction from single-source tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.