Search Confluence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the fact that it performs CQL search via an orchestrator, but it does not disclose any optional behaviors like fuzzy matching, result limits, or potential side effects. These are present in the schema, but the description contributes minimal extra behavioral context beyond 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 sentence and highly concise, with no filler. However, the phrase 'highlighted' is vague and 'shared Confluence orchestrator' may be unnecessary internal jargon, slightly detracting from clarity. Still, it is appropriately brief and front-loaded.

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 tool with 8 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'highlighted CQL search' means, how results are delivered, or any orchestrator-specific behaviors. The schema and annotations cover parameters and safety, but the description lacks sufficient context about the overall search workflow, making it adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail; the schema fully defines every parameter with types, defaults, and semantics. Therefore the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the action ('Execute a ... CQL search') and the resource ('Confluence'), and it distinguishes from the sibling tool fetch_confluence_page by focusing on search. However, the term 'highlighted' is ambiguous and the phrase 'via the shared Confluence orchestrator' introduces unnecessary implementation detail that may confuse rather than clarify.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch_confluence_page. It does not state any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. The only contextual hint is in the schema's query parameter description, but the tool description itself lacks usage direction.

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