cf_search_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that output is limited to targeted snippets and code samples, and 'search' implies a read-only operation, but it does not state auth requirements, rate limits, or explicitly confirm read-only safety.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded before the usage recommendation, making it easy to parse.

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?

It gives a clear purpose and usage hint, and return values are covered by the output schema. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description omits essential parameter guidance and behavioral safety details, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 does not mention either parameter. It provides no meaning for 'query' (e.g., acceptable format, natural language vs. keywords) or 'limit' (e.g., max results, default behavior).

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?

States a specific verb ('search') and resource ('Cloudflare configuration/architecture guidance'), and clarifies it returns targeted snippets and code samples only. This distinguishes it from sibling API-action tools without needing to name them.

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?

Explicitly says to use this instead of loading manuals or guessing wrangler/wrangler-free API syntax, giving clear context for when to invoke it. No exclusions or named alternative sibling tools are provided, but the guidance is strong.

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