page_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only search but does not describe authentication needs, pagination, result limits, or what the response contains.

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 with no wasted wording. It is very terse, but that terseness reflects under-specification rather than verbosity.

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 four-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits site/space scoping behavior, pagination, result format, and practical differences between CQL and plain text.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for the required 'query' parameter by indicating that it accepts CQL or plain text, which the schema does not explain. However, it does not clarify the 'space' parameter, and schema coverage for parameters is only 50%.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search pages', and adds that the query can be CQL or plain text. It distinguishes itself implicitly from page_get, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools or clarify the scope of the search.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as page_get or issue_search. It also does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or how to choose between CQL and plain text.

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