search_apple_design_docs

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 which corpora are searched (behavioral context), but says nothing about pagination, ranking, or result limits, which matters for a search tool whose behavior the agent must predict.

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, no filler, with the resource scope front-loaded before the usage list. Every clause carries 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?

For a read-only search tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing. The only omission, sibling routing, is a minor nice-to-have rather than a blocking 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 description coverage is 100%, so query, limit, platform, and contentType are all documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The description repeats the content categories but adds no format or syntax guidance beyond what the schema provides, 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 three concrete resources (Apple Design pages, HIG JSON, Design Resources catalog entries). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the obvious sibling search_apple_docs to draw the boundary between design-specific and general Apple doc search.

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 second sentence gives a solid when-to-use list (HIG guidance, design resources, templates, fonts, product bezels, overview pages). It lacks any explicit when-not-to-use or a pointer to search_apple_docs for non-design content, so the routing against siblings remains inferential.

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