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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive annotations, it discloses a concrete rate limit (at most 10 reads of the linked site a minute per person), error behavior (unreadable queries return the site's reason), and the exact fields returned per page. That is substantive context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, target site and example queries; the sibling routing and rate limit follow. It is a single dense paragraph with long em-dash-linked clauses that could be broken up, but no sentence is filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it covers rate limits, failure semantics, and sibling alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning with three concrete CQL examples showing query syntax and clause forms (type/text/parent/space/title with ORDER BY). The project-versus-issue alternative is reiterated usefully but the limit cap is only restated from the 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?

States a specific verb and resource (search a project's linked Confluence site with CQL) and explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings: get_linked_confluence_page for reading one page whole, and search_wiki for the tracker's own wiki. An agent can pick the right tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: use search_wiki for the tracker's own wiki, get_linked_confluence_page to read a whole page, and supply either 'project' or 'issue' to identify the site. The 'issue'/'project' alternative is spelled out with examples.

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