search_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context that only accessible pages are searched and that space scoping is possible. It does not describe search syntax, ranking, or pagination behavior, which would add further value, but it does not contradict annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action and resource immediately, then adds the optional scoping nuance. There is no filler or repetition of schema information, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 search tool with four well-documented parameters and annotations covering safety and open-world behavior, the description is nearly complete. It effectively communicates the access scope and optional space filter. The only small gap is that it does not describe result details such as ordering or returned fields, but no output schema exists and the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 every parameter already has a meaningful description (query, limit, offset, space_id). The description's mention of optional space scoping aligns with space_id but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter documentation.

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 ('Full-text search') with a clear resource ('pages') and defines the access boundary ('the authenticated user can access'). It also notes optional scoping to a space, which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_attachments and search_suggest without opening their schemas.

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 clearly establishes the core use case: searching for pages, not attachments or other resources. It also describes the optional space scoping feature, giving useful context for narrowing a search. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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