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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no read/write nature, no permission or auth needs, no rate limits, no result format. The one-line keyword dump adds zero behavioral context.

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?

It is short, but it spends its entire length on alias keyword stuffing and name repetition rather than substance. Compactness without information is under-specification, not conciseness.

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 1-param tool the schema covers the input, but with no annotations, no output schema, and no statement of what the tool actually does, the definition leaves the agent guessing about the core operation and its behavior.

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% — the single 'query' parameter is already documented as 'Search terms for bundled SDK references.' The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool identifier: 'api.reference.search (reference-search)' repeats the name, and the rest is platform keywords ('MediaSFU Apple / Swift'). It never states the actual action (searching bundled SDK references), so an agent learns the namespace but not the purpose.

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 and no contrast with siblings. The 'Apple / Swift' prefix and alias list do imply this is the Swift-platform variant among the many platform-scoped siblings, which is minimal implicit routing, but nothing explains when to pick this over e.g. shared::api.reference.search.

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