Search BlazingCDN docs

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

With readOnlyHint=true already present, the description adds extra behavioral value by explaining the output shape: matching pages with URLs and summaries. It also sets expectations that this is a search-as-a-resource tool rather than a domain-level search, which helps the agent understand the result usage pattern.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with a concrete example and return-behavior note. Every clause contributes useful information for tool selection and invocation.

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 a simple single-parameter read-only search tool, the description is fully adequate. It covers what is searched, how results are returned (URLs and summaries), and the next step for full details. There is no output schema, so the description's explanation of the return format and follow-up action fills that gap completely.

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 input schema already documents the single 'query' parameter with examples at 100% coverage. The description adds an additional example and states that 'image processing' returns a specific guide with URL format and parameters, which gives the agent a concrete sense of how the query maps to results beyond the schema's generic description.

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 specifies the action ('Search'), the resource ('BlazingCDN documentation, how-to guides and product pages'), and the input type ('by keyword'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like search_custom_domains because the target domain is explicit and different.

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 communicates clear usage context: this is for searching documentation and getting summaries, with the instruction to fetch a URL for full details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the scope is unambiguous enough that an agent can decide when to invoke it.

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