search_hig

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only offers the vague claim 'in real-time' — no hint at result ordering, result count, pagination, or what a hit looks like. It does disclose that matching spans titles, descriptions, and categories, which is the one genuinely useful behavioral detail.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the searched-field list is placed where it is most useful. It is lean to the point of leaving obvious questions (return shape, result limits) unaddressed, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient to call correctly. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about what comes back and how results are ranked or capped.

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% and both parameters (query, category) are documented with examples in the schema itself. The description adds no filtering semantics, matching rules, or interaction between query and category beyond what the schema already says, so 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 ('Search') and resource ('Apple Human Interface Guidelines topics, titles, descriptions, and categories'), so the agent knows this is a keyword search over HIG content. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (get_guideline, list_topics), but the retrieval-by-query framing is clear enough to separate it.

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 only implied: the presence of a 'query' keyword search suggests it is for discovery when the agent doesn't already know the exact topic. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_guideline (fetch by id) or list_topics (browse), and no exclusions.

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