search_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. While it details the CQL syntax, it fails to disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, error handling, rate limits, or what fields are returned in search results. Critical gaps remain.

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 front-loaded with purpose but becomes lengthy due to the detailed CQL grammar. While thorough, it could be more concise by referencing external documentation. It maintains structure with a pseudo-BNF format, but the length may hinder quick parsing by an AI agent.

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 thoroughly covers the CQL syntax, meeting the tool's primary complexity. However, it omits essential contextual details such as output format, result structure, error handling, and authentication requirements. Without an output schema, these omissions reduce completeness for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds significant value for the query parameter by providing a full CQL grammar, enabling the agent to construct complex queries. Other parameters are adequately described in the schema, so the net addition is meaningful but not transformative.

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 'Search for Confluence pages using CQL', specifying the verb (search) and resource (Confluence pages) with a distinct method (CQL). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_page (single page retrieval) or get_spaces.

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 usage via CQL search but does not explicitly define when to use this tool over siblings. It lacks guidance on alternatives or when not to use it, though the CQL focus makes the context moderately clear.

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