tavily_crawl

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, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention whether external links are followed, rate limits, robots.txt handling, authentication needs, or what the returned content includes, which are important for a crawler.

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 compact in two sentences with no filler, and the core action and configurable aspect appear early. It loses a point because it does not structure key concepts for parameter understanding, but as a concise summary it is efficient.

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 an 11-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, this description is drastically incomplete. It provides no information about parameter semantics, usage scenarios, return values, or edge cases, even though an output schema exists; an agent would likely need to introspect defaults or experiment to invoke this correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It only vaguely references 'configurable depth and breadth' (mapping to max_depth/max_breadth), but it does not explain limit, format, instructions, select_paths, extract_depth, allow_external, select_domains, or include_favicon, leaving agents to guess.

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 ('crawl a website starting from a URL') and the core output ('extracts content from pages'), which is clearly distinct from search and map. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'tavily_extract', leaving slight ambiguity about single-page vs multi-page 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tavily_extract or tavily_research. It does not state conditions under which crawling is preferred, nor any exclusions, so an agent receives no selection guidance.

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