Search BlazingCDN docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a critical behavioral detail: the tool returns matching pages with URLs, and users must fetch a URL for full details. This clarifies that the tool does not return page content, exceeding annotation coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. It includes the essential behavior (returns URLs) and a pointer for full details without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, read-only annotation), the description provides enough context for a user to understand what to expect: a list of pages with URLs. It could be slightly more explicit about the result format, but for this low complexity, it is sufficient.

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% for the single 'query' parameter, with concrete examples provided. The description's mention of 'keyword' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('BlazingCDN public documentation and product pages'), and the keyword-based search behavior. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'search_custom_domains' which focuses on custom domains, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 makes it clear when to use this tool (searching public docs/product pages), and the context signals include sibling search_custom_domains, implying a distinction for domain-specific searches. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, only implying them through resource specificity.

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