search_confluence_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the operation as a search, implying a read-only action, but does not mention pagination behavior, return format, error handling, or any access considerations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence is mildly generic but still frames the tool's use case without adding unnecessary length.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and the schema documents all parameters well. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not illuminate what results look like or how they are structured, and it also omits guidance about when to prefer sibling search tools.

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 parameter descriptions already provide detailed semantics including an example for cql and constraints for limit. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond mentioning CQL, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool performs a search for Confluence pages using CQL, which is a specific verb, resource, and query language. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_pages_by_user_involvement, so it misses the top score.

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?

It indicates the tool is useful for finding pages matching specific criteria, which implies when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as using user-involvement searches instead when the target is based on user activity.

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