search_wwdc_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds only the breadth of the corpus being searched; it does not surface the costly Jev rerank path or result volume, though that detail does live in the select/limit schema entries. Adequate but thin beyond what structured fields provide.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded: capability, use cases, then sibling differentiation. No filler and nothing an agent needs is buried at the end.

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 7-parameter read-only search tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers capability, scope and differentiation adequately, and no output schema exists so return-format explanation is not owed. It would be a 5 with any note on result ordering or pagination expectations.

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% and the parameter docs are unusually detailed (limit vs maxResults vs select interaction, year format, enum values), so the schema carries the full semantic load. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is the correct baseline when the schema is this complete.

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 (full-text search) plus resource scope (WWDC video transcripts and code examples) and enumerates the concrete intents it serves: discussions, API mentions, implementation examples. It also names the sibling it supersedes, list_wwdc_videos, so an agent can disambiguate without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from list_wwdc_videos when looking for specific content, which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of exclusions (e.g. use get_wwdc_video when you already have an ID) and says nothing about when a narrower tool like get_wwdc_code_examples would be preferable.

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