tavily-search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time results' and 'customizable parameters,' but doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, pagination, or what the response structure looks like. For a search tool with 15 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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?

The description is perfectly concise with three well-structured sentences. The first sentence establishes core functionality, the second explains key features, and the third provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and information is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the response format, error handling, rate limits, or how results are structured. For a search tool that likely returns rich data, the description should provide more context about what the agent can expect from the tool's behavior and outputs.

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?

The description mentions 'customizable parameters for result count, content type, and domain filtering,' which adds some context beyond the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already comprehensively documents all 15 parameters. The description provides high-level grouping but doesn't add meaningful semantic value beyond what's in the detailed schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose as a 'web search tool' that 'provides comprehensive, real-time results' using Tavily's AI engine. It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('web content'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tavily-crawl or tavily-extract, which likely have different functions (crawling vs. extracting vs. searching).

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 provides implied usage guidance by stating it's 'ideal for gathering current information, news, and detailed web content analysis.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (tavily-crawl, tavily-extract, tavily-map) or when not to use it. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive for sibling differentiation.

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