Apple API availability (min OS version)

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so safety is fully covered. The description adds the data source (apple_docs index) and the two pieces of information returned, but says nothing about index coverage limits, lookup failures for unknown symbols, or how deprecation is reported.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary capability; the second sentence about the apple_docs index earns its place as a scope signal. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description does indicate the content of the answer (introduced-in version plus deprecation status), which is the main thing an agent needs. It stops short of covering not-found behavior or output shape, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor 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%: api_name is documented with concrete examples ("SwiftUI.View", "UITableView") and format has an enum with a default. The description adds no extra meaning about the symbol-name format, framework prefixing, or the effect of choosing json vs markdown, so the 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?

It states a specific verb and resource — looking up the minimum OS version an Apple API was introduced in, plus deprecation status — which is concrete and unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as apple_api_deprecation, wwdc_find_api_introduction, or apple_what_replaced, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which one to pick.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named despite several siblings covering overlapping ground (apple_api_deprecation for deprecation, wwdc_find_api_introduction for introduction versions). The only scoping signal is the implicit statement that it queries the apple_docs index, which hints at coverage but does not guide tool selection.

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