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. It effectively describes the crawling behavior ('expands like a tree', 'following internal links'), scope control ('how deep and wide it goes'), and focus guidance. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output format looks like.

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 sized at three sentences, each earning its place. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by expansion behavior, and ending with control capabilities. Zero wasted words or redundant information.

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 a 10-parameter web crawling tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate high-level context but lacks details about output format, error conditions, performance characteristics, or specific use cases. For a tool this complex, more behavioral and output information would be helpful despite the excellent schema coverage.

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 documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some high-level context about controlling depth, breadth, and focusing on specific sections, which aligns with parameters like max_depth, max_breadth, and categories/select_paths. However, it doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's already in the comprehensive 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 with specific verbs ('initiates a structured web crawl', 'expands like a tree', 'following internal links') and identifies the resource ('starting from a specified base URL'). It distinguishes this crawl tool from sibling tools like 'search' or 'extract' by emphasizing its tree-based expansion approach.

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 about when to use this tool: for structured crawling starting from a base URL with tree-like expansion. It mentions controlling depth, breadth, and focusing on specific site sections. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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