Full-text search inside WWDC transcripts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the FTS5 backend and the snippet-in-context return format, which is useful, but omits query-syntax behavior (phrase quoting, boolean operators) that materially affects results for a full-text tool.

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, zero filler, and the core action plus its scope are front-loaded before the return-value note. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and a full-text backend, the description is adequate but thin. It doesn't explain FTS5 query syntax (which drives match behavior), pagination via limit/offset, or how the overlapping year filters relate; the annotations carry the safety profile but not the search semantics.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters (year bounds, limit, offset, format). The description contributes only the notion that the query is a free-text phrase against an FTS5 index; it adds no syntax detail, no note on how year/year_min/year_max interact, and nothing on limit/offset.

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 (search) and resource (full text of indexed WWDC transcripts), and the return shape (matching sessions with a snippet). It is distinguishable from retrieval-oriented siblings like wwdc_session_transcript_full, but it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 description implies when the tool applies (finding sessions by phrase) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing toward alternatives such as wwdc_search or wwdc_session_transcript_full. An agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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