Search Content

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description/schema adds meaningful behavioral detail: simple queries use siteSearch by default with an automatic fallback to text search, and special CQL identifiers require quoting. This helps the agent predict how queries will be interpreted.

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 top-level description is a single front-loaded sentence. The extensive CQL examples are placed in the schema where they belong and each example earns its place by demonstrating distinct, non-obvious syntax. Nothing is redundant.

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 search tool with annotations, a complete input schema, and an output schema, the description plus parameter documentation covers query modes, limits, filtering, quoting caveats, and common use cases. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly without further inference.

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%, and the query parameter description goes far beyond a label by providing multiple CQL examples, quoting rules, and common search patterns. The spaces_filter parameter also explains its interaction with the CONFLUENCE_SPACES_FILTER environment variable and how to disable filtering.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Confluence content'), and clarifies the query styles ('simple terms or CQL'). This clearly separates it from sibling 'confluence_search_user', which targets users rather than content.

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 the general usage context clear and the schema provides extensive CQL guidance, but it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as confluence_search_user. Usage is implied rather than directly contrasted with sibling search tools.

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