tavily-extract

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 states the tool 'retrieves and processes raw content' but doesn't mention critical behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'processes' entails (e.g., cleaning, structuring). For a web extraction tool with potential complexity, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently state the tool's purpose and ideal use cases. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. While it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from guidelines), there's minimal waste, and every sentence adds value.

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 complexity of web content extraction (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error cases, performance characteristics, and how it differs from sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate more to help an agent use it effectively, but it provides only basic functional overview.

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 the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'extract_depth' or 'format' further). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have provided higher-level context about parameter interactions.

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: 'retrieves and processes raw content from specified URLs' with specific verbs and resource. It mentions use cases like 'data collection, content analysis, and research tasks' which helps clarify intent. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tavily-crawl' or 'tavily-search', which likely have overlapping web content functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tavily-crawl' or 'tavily-search'. It mentions it's 'ideal for data collection, content analysis, and research tasks', but this is generic and doesn't help an agent choose between sibling tools. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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