search_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Search for existing pages.' It does not mention whether the search covers titles, bodies, or both, whether results are paginated, or what the return shape is. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 six-word sentence with no redundancy or filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It could have included a brief usage note or scope clarification without becoming bloated, so it is concise but not maximally useful in structure.

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?

This is a simple 2-parameter tool with no nested objects and full schema coverage, so the basic invocation is clear. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not explain what the search returns, and there is no mention of search semantics or result limits. Adequate for a basic call, but incomplete for confident use.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning to query or spaceKey, but it does align with the search action. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Search') and resource ('existing pages in Confluence'), so an agent understands this is a lookup-by-query tool. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like get_page or list_spaces, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer search_pages over get_page or list_spaces, and no exclusions or alternative suggestions. The schema mentions spaceKey as an optional filter, but the description does not explain when that filter matters.

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