tavily_research_create

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: the task is asynchronous and results must be polled via research_get. It does not cover potential costs, rate limits, or task persistence, but the async/polling disclosure is valuable.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the essential polling instruction. No filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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 complex 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral facts: it creates an async task that produces a cited report, and results are retrieved with research_get. It omits details about return shape or parameter nuances, but those are either in the schema or in the sibling polling tool, making the description largely complete for its purpose.

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%, so all 8 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning (e.g., it does not explain input, files, or model tiers). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('async research task'), and explains the action chain: searches, analyzes sources, and generates a cited report. It differentiates from the sibling tavily_research_get by pointing to polling, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from tavily_search, leaving a small gap in sibling differentiation.

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?

The description implies usage through 'Create an async research task...' and gives the follow-up action 'Poll results with research_get.' However, it does not state when to choose this over alternatives like tavily_search, nor any preconditions or exclusions. Usage is only partially implied.

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