tavily_crawl

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

The description mentions '多 API Key 自动轮换' (multiple API keys auto-rotate), which is a behavioral trait beyond the schema. However, with no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose other critical behaviors such as rate limits, destructive potential, or authentication requirements. Minimal transparency is achieved.

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 extremely concise at two short sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds one key behavioral detail. No filler or redundancy exists.

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?

With 17 parameters, no annotation, and an output schema present, the description is far too brief to provide complete context. Parameter meanings, usage patterns, and return behavior are not addressed, making the tool difficult to use correctly without external documentation.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of any parameter. The 17 parameters (including url, max_depth, max_breadth, etc.) are entirely undocumented in the text, leaving the agent without semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 '爬取网站' (crawl website) clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tavily_search or tavily_extract by using 'crawl' instead of 'search' or 'extract', though no explicit differentiation is provided.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use instructions are provided. The description only states what it does without any usage recommendations.

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