confluence_get_point

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does well by noting that confluence.org can be slow (10+ seconds) and that the tool has a 30s timeout. It also names the returned fields. This gives an agent useful operational expectations beyond the schema.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences convey the operation, return contents, and key performance warning without any filler. Every sentence 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call context: what it does, what data it returns, and a critical timeout warning. It lacks only guidance on choosing between this tool and 'confluence_parse_html', but the core invocation context is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema already fully documents both parameters, including type, range, and examples, with 100% coverage. The description only restates 'latitude and longitude' and adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score applies.

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 ('Fetch and parse') and a specific resource ('a confluence.org point page by latitude and longitude'), and it clearly states the structured data returned. This distinguishes the tool from the sibling 'confluence_parse_html' by emphasizing coordinate-based point lookup.

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 the tool is for fetching point data from lat/lon coordinates, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over the sibling 'confluence_parse_html' or state any exclusions or alternatives.

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