confluence_search_pages

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-established. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations and the schema, but it doesn't contradict the annotations either. Since the annotations carry the burden and the description is consistent (if uninformative), a 3 is fair.

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 a single sentence with zero fluff—every word serves a purpose. It front-loads the core action clearly. While it could be more informative, as a concise statement it is well-structured. The format is efficient, though slightly under-specified.

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 tool has no output schema, some clarity on return values would be beneficial (e.g., what fields are returned by default, whether results include content snippets or just titles). For a 3-parameter search tool with solid annotations and schema coverage, the description is almost sufficient, but the lack of any mention of result behavior (pagination, default ordering) keeps it at a 3.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters (query, limit, spaceKey). The description's phrase "by text content" marginally implies the query parameter's role, but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 for high schema coverage 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 searches pages by text content, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling tool `confluence_search`, which likely performs a similar or identical function. A 4 is appropriate since the purpose is transparent but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `confluence_search`. The description does not explain when to prefer this over sibling tools, nor does it discuss exclusions or preconditions. This is a missed opportunity for such a generically-named operation.

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