search_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and parameters but does not explicitly confirm that it is a read-only operation, nor does it describe the output structure (though an output schema exists). Since search tools generally have no destructive side effects, the risk is moderate, but more transparency—such as noting it returns a list of matching pages—would improve the score.

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 extremely concise: a single lead sentence stating purpose, followed by a compact argument list. Every sentence provides necessary information without fluff, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy to scan.

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 simple nature of the tool, an output schema, and the parameter explanations, the description is largely complete. The main gap is the lack of guidance on when to use simple text vs. CQL or whether the search is full-text, but this is a minor omission for a straightforward search tool.

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 schema itself has no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by defining 'query' as 'CQL query or simple text' and 'limit' as 'Max results (1-50, default 10),' adding format, bounds, and defaults beyond the bare schema fields. This is exactly the kind of added meaning needed for correct invocation.

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 function: 'Search Confluence pages using CQL or simple text.' It uses a specific verb (search) and a distinct resource (Confluence pages), and it names the search methods (CQL or simple text), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_page (retrieves a specific page) and get_page_tree (returns a hierarchy).

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 clearly indicates this is the tool for locating Confluence pages via search, providing enough context for an AI agent to infer it's the go-to tool for discovery. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the 'explicit when/when-not' level.

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