Search Apple technologies

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's main contribution is the closed-world scope ('bundled 405-entry source snapshot'), consistent with openWorldHint=false. It does not disclose query matching semantics, ordering, or result shape, but for a read-only search tool with these annotations this is an adequate baseline. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that packs the verb, resource, scope, and corpus size with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 low-complexity search tool, annotations cover safety and idempotence, the schema fully constrains the two parameters, and the description defines the scope precisely. The only notable omission is the return-entry shape, but since no output schema exists, the agent can reasonably infer a list of matching technologies.

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 0%, but the description partially compensates by defining the searchable corpus and item types, clarifying what 'query' will be matched against. 'limit' is fully constrained by the schema and needs little extra explanation. It does not explain fuzzy/prefix matching or how limit affects results, so it stays at a 3.

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 states a specific action ('Find') over a well-defined resource ('Apple frameworks, tools, services and legacy technologies') and adds a precise scope ('bundled 405-entry source snapshot'). It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as get_apple_technology or search_local_references, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 implies the tool is for querying the bundled Apple technology snapshot, which is enough to signal its general niche. It does not state when to prefer this over search_local_references or get_apple_technology, nor does it give exclusions. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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