apple_photos_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the leading 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The description does add one genuine behavioral fact beyond the annotations: results are 'bounded metadata' (i.e., capped and metadata-only, not full assets), but it omits pagination behavior, defaults, and whether the app must be running.

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; the read-only qualifier and the return-shape note both sit up front. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for the amount of undocumented surface it covers.

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?

With no output schema, three schema-undocumented parameters, and no annotations on return format, the description should explain what a result contains and how paging works. It does not, leaving an agent unsure how to build a query or iterate results.

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%, so all three parameters (query, limit, offset) are undocumented in structured data, and the description compensates only weakly ('bounded' hints at limit). Query syntax, matching semantics, and the offset/limit paging relationship are left entirely unstated.

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 (Photos) and clarifies it uses the app's native search command, which distinguishes it from apple_photos_list/get. However it never names those siblings or states what the search matches against, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to prefer this over apple_photos_list or apple_photos_get, nor what kinds of queries are supported (filenames, dates, people, albums). Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb.

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