confluence_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the tool returns matching pages, blog posts, and spaces with title, spaceKey, URL, and an excerpt, which is useful. It does not disclose response list structure, pagination behavior, auth/permission requirements, or behavior on no matches, but these are less critical for a read-style search tool.

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 one sentence with no filler, front-loads the action and resource ('Search Confluence content using CQL'), and then states the return fields. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity search tool with fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It explains what content is searched and what fields are returned, partially compensating for the missing output schema. It could still mention result ordering or pagination, but limit is already in the schema and the usage pattern is straightforward.

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 for parameters is 100%, and the schema already documents cql with examples and limit with default/min/max. The description does not need to add param semantics, but it also does not contribute anything beyond mentioning CQL by name. Baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search Confluence content using CQL' and lists what is returned (pages, blog posts, spaces). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like confluence_get_page (retrieving a specific page) and jira_search_issues (searching Jira).

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 context is clear: this is the Confluence search tool, and sibling names imply alternatives like confluence_get_page for known pages. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use it instead of another tool, nor does it mention exclusions such as 'use confluence_get_page when you already have the page ID.'

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