Search sessions by speaker

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds matching semantics ('case-insensitive substring match against the speakers field'), which is not derivable from the annotations, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or behavior when no speaker matches.

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 tight sentences with the capability front-loaded and the matching rule immediately after. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 read-only search tool with a well-described 4-param schema, the definition covers what the tool does and how matching works. No output schema exists, so return shape is unstated, but this is a minor gap for a filtered-list tool.

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 75%, with the speaker parameter already documenting partial-name matching via an example. The description's substring note is mildly reinforcing rather than additive, and it says nothing about year, limit, or format beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource: 'Find all WWDC sessions featuring a speaker.' This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like wwdc_search (general session search) and wwdc_transcript_search (transcript full-text), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and the speaker-scoped purpose, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives such as wwdc_search or apple_forum_search for speaker-related lookups. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the boundary.

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