Search Swift Forums

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (ranked posts with title, category, URL, content snippet), which matters because no output schema exists. It does not mention pagination behavior or rate limits, keeping it out of the top band.

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, front-loaded with what and where, then return shape, then use cases. No filler or repetition of the tool name. Slightly more use-case enumeration than strictly needed, but each clause is informative.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the corpus, the filterable categories, and the return fields. The notable omission is that the tool is paginated (limit/offset exist) and that offset allows paging past the first result set, which an agent would have to discover from the schema alone.

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 60%, and the schema itself carries the query examples and format enum description. The description does echo the three category values ('Swift Evolution... using-swift... development'), reinforcing the most important filter, but it says nothing about limit/offset pagination or total counts. That is a baseline 3 given partial schema coverage.

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+resource: full-text search across forums.swift.org, and names the concrete content domains (Swift Evolution discussion, using-swift, development). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names the closest sibling (apple_forum_search) or explains how the two corpora differ, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

The final sentence gives implied usage ('finding community discussion around Swift proposals, language behavior, compiler questions, and API usage'), which is genuine context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and with a near-identical sibling (apple_forum_search) present, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap for retrieval selection.

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