tavily-map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as 'powerful' and for 'discovering and analyzing,' which implies it performs read-only operations, but doesn't specify behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or potential impacts on target websites. The description adds value by explaining the mapping purpose but lacks detailed behavioral disclosure.

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 sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then elaborates on use cases. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the tool's purpose and use cases well, but without annotations or output schema, it doesn't cover behavioral aspects or return values, leaving the agent to infer details from the schema alone.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'categories' interact with mapping or the implications of 'max_depth.' Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'creates a structured map of website URLs' with specific verbs like 'discover and analyze site structure, content organization, and navigation paths.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'search' or 'extract' by focusing on mapping and structural analysis rather than general search or content extraction.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Perfect for site audits, content discovery, and understanding website architecture.' It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the context strongly implies it's for structural mapping rather than other tasks like searching or crawling without mapping.

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