Search Confluence for pages related to a Jira issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond that — results are 'ranked by relevance and authority' — but says nothing about empty-result behavior, ranking inputs, or how open-world space discovery interacts with the configured space default.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the parenthetical examples earn their place by narrowing scope. Nothing redundant or restated from the title.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description does not need to explain return values. Given four fully documented parameters, the definition is sufficient to invoke correctly; only the selection guidance against siblings is thin.

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 issueKey, spaceKeys, maxResults, and includeLowRelevance are all documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the correct baseline of 3 when the schema carries the full burden.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find Confluence pages') anchored to an input ('relevant to a Jira issue') and gives content-type examples (specs, designs, runbooks) that scope what counts as relevant. An agent can separate it from confluence_get_page (single-page fetch) by inference, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is implied: call it when you hold a Jira issue and want supporting documentation. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to unhinted alternatives such as confluence_get_page for full page bodies or jira_prepare_work_brief for briefing workflows.

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