confluence_search_and_fetch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the auto-mode stop-at-first-match behavior, partial results for non-pages or failed fetches, and the strategy.cqlUsed reporting field. It doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or exact return shape, so it is not a 5, but it is unusually transparent.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: high-level purpose, sibling differentiation, search mode semantics, tokenization rationale, and failure behavior. It is front-loaded with the most important routing information and has no filler.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers the critical decision-making context: when to use the tool, how search modes behave, and what happens on partial failure. Gaps remain in documenting several parameters and the exact return envelope, but an agent can confidently invoke the main workflow.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain query vs cql and the search_mode enum in depth, which is the most complex parameter. However, it never clarifies body_format, start, fetch_top, max_chars, max_chars_per_page, or fetch_concurrency beyond what their names or defaults imply, leaving several parameters under-specified.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource statement: 'Find pages and read their bodies in one MCP call.' It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling workflow 'confluence_search followed by confluence_get_page per result,' making its unique value obvious.

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?

It explicitly says 'Prefer this over confluence_search followed by confluence_get_page per result,' and then gives detailed routing guidance: when to use auto vs pinned search modes vs cql, including the rationale for preserving identifiers. This is unambiguous selection guidance.

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