search_confluence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly does not: it does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated, ordering, or any permission/rate-limit constraints. Only the schema's limit field hints at result capping.

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 filler. It is efficient, though arguably too short to carry the behavioral burden a no-annotation tool needs.

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 simple two-parameter read tool this covers the core action, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should at least indicate the return shape (e.g. page ids/titles) or pagination behavior. It is minimally viable, 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%: cql is documented with an example and limit with its range and default. The description adds only the CQL acronym expansion, which is marginal value over the schema.

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 (search) and resource (Confluence pages) plus the query mechanism (CQL). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_confluence_page, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance beyond the implied 'you have a CQL query'. It never says when to prefer this over get_confluence_page for a known page, or how it relates to jira_search for cross-product queries.

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