get_apple_design_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral nuance — HIG pages are served from Apple JSON when available while other /design/ pages fall back to HTML parsing — but says nothing about failure modes, rate limits, or what the returned content looks like.

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 core action front-loaded and the parsing caveat second. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence leans toward implementation detail rather than agent-relevant guidance.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, this is nearly complete. No output schema exists, so the description could say more about what content is returned, but the essential call contract is clear.

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 there is a single parameter, so the schema already carries the load. The description adds only marginal meaning by indicating the two URL categories the parameter accepts; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: 'Read Apple Design and Human Interface Guidelines URLs.' It implicitly separates itself from the generalist sibling get_apple_doc_content by scoping to /design/ and HIG URLs, though it never names an alternative outright.

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 accepted URL shapes (HIG pages vs other /design/ pages) hint at when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-a-sibling statement against get_apple_doc_content or search_apple_design_docs.

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