WWDC sessions mentioning an API symbol

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are relevance-ranked and that year is shown prominently, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or transcript-snippet behavior.

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 compact sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every sentence earns its place with 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 read-only search with no output schema, the description conveys the search fields, ranking, and year emphasis, which is close to complete. It stops short of describing result shape or limits, a minor gap for a lookup tool with full annotation coverage.

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%, so all four parameters (including year, format, include_transcript) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema and only obliquely touches search scope, 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?

States a specific verb (find), resource (WWDC sessions), and the exact search scope (title, description, or transcript) tied to an API symbol. This distinguishes it from transcript-only siblings like wwdc_transcript_search and generic wwdc_search without needing to open any 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?

The symbol-in-sessions framing implies when to use it, but no alternatives (e.g., wwdc_search, wwdc_find_api_introduction) or exclusion conditions are named. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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