Search-Apple-Docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the search capability and scope ('all WWDC video transcripts and code examples'), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the search returns. For a search tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

The description is perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: first establishes core functionality, second provides usage examples, third gives comparative guidance. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. While it clearly states the purpose and provides comparative guidance, it lacks crucial information about parameter meanings, search behavior, result format, and limitations. For a search tool with multiple filtering parameters, this leaves too many unknowns for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 5 parameters, the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'search across all WWDC video transcripts and code examples' which hints at scope but doesn't explain what the 5 parameters (query, searchIn, year, language, limit) mean or how they affect the search. The description adds minimal value beyond what the bare schema provides.

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?

The description clearly states the tool performs 'full-text search across all WWDC video transcripts and code examples' with specific verbs ('search', 'find') and resources ('transcripts', 'code examples'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'list_wwdc_videos' by stating it's 'more powerful... for finding specific content', providing clear differentiation.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'More powerful than list_wwdc_videos for finding specific content.' It also implies usage context through 'Find specific discussions, API mentions, or implementation examples,' giving clear scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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