confluence_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on auth setup (site/email/api_token are required), result ordering, pagination, or rate limiting.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, but its brevity comes from omission rather than disciplined editing — there is room for one routing sentence without bloat.

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 output schema and four required auth parameters, the description should at least hint at credential expectations and what a hit contains. For a search tool in a crowded sibling set, one sentence is not enough to call it correctly with confidence.

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% across all five parameters, so the schema carries the semantic load (site, email, api_token, query, limit with max 50/default 25). The description's 'by text' only loosely gestures at the query parameter, adding nothing new. Baseline 3 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?

Specific verb (Search) plus resource (Confluence pages) with the matching criteria (by text). It reads clearly apart from confluence_get_page and confluence_list_spaces, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to search versus when to fetch a known page (confluence_get_page) or browse spaces (confluence_list_spaces), and no mention of prerequisites or limits. The agent must infer routing from the tool name alone.

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