Find when an Apple API was introduced

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it searches WWDC sessions and returns sessions sorted by year ascending, which is useful output behavior, but does not disclose limitations, rate limits, or auth needs. Comparable to the calibration example with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. Front-loads the input and action, then the output ordering. Every sentence earns its place.

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 search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input examples, and return ordering. The schema provides defaults and an enum, and annotations cover safety. The only gap is the lack of explanation for the limit parameter, which is minor.

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 67% (symbol and format have descriptions; limit has none). The description adds no information about the limit or format parameters and only repeats the symbol examples already present in the schema. It fails to compensate for the undocumented limit parameter, so a low score is warranted.

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 ('searches'), resource ('WWDC sessions'), and goal ('determine which year it was first announced or introduced'). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like wwdc_sessions_for_api or apple_api_availability, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description explains function but never says when to choose this over wwdc_search or apple_api_availability. Implied use case exists but no guidance is provided.

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