Search WWDC Content

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the corpus is local/bundled (no network), that results are ranked most-matches-first, and describes the actual return shape (title, link, year, up to 3 matches with snippets). It doesn't mention pagination or result limits beyond the schema, but the added disclosure is substantial.

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?

It is a single dense sentence that front-loads purpose before spilling into return-format detail. Nothing is wasted, though the return-format clause makes it longer than strictly needed for selection.

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 no output schema, the description usefully compensates by describing the result shape. All 5 parameters are covered and the offline nature is disclosed, leaving only sibling routing as an unaddressed gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of meaning by clarifying that searchIn toggles transcript vs code and that language only applies to code, but this largely restates what the schema already documents.

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 ("Full-text search of the bundled WWDC transcripts and code") plus a scope qualifier ("no network") that separates it from sibling doc/symbol search tools. An agent can distinguish it from search_apple_docs or search_framework_symbols without opening the 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 description explains how searchIn and language shape the search, which is genuine usage guidance at the parameter level. However, it never states when to pick this tool over alternatives like search_apple_docs or find_related_wwdc_videos, so inter-tool routing is left to inference.

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