search_pages_by_user_involvement

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 explains the involvement dimensions but does not state that a user identity (username or accountId) is needed, how the 'both' searchType is interpreted, or what the response contains. The phrase 'such as' also leaves the exact scope of involvement slightly ambiguous.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 annotations, no output schema, and six parameters including two alternative user identifiers, the description is too sparse. It omits how the user must be specified, how 'both' behaves, and what the search returns, leaving too much for the agent to infer.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description only paraphrases the searchType semantics and adds no meaningful detail about the relationship between username and accountId or pagination behavior.

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 and resource ('Search pages') and clarifies the basis of the search as user involvement via creator, last modifier, or both. This clearly differentiates it from the broader search_confluence_pages and the narrower list_pages_created_by_user.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need pages linked to a user's involvement. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as using list_pages_created_by_user for creator-only results or search_confluence_pages for content-based searches.

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