Apple API deprecation status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the lookup is by symbol name and what facts come back, but says nothing about coverage limits (which SDKs/versions), failure behavior for unknown symbols, or the format parameter's effect.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the lookup key. Nothing redundant and no filler.

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, the description usefully previews the return shape (deprecation status, deprecation date, replacement symbol), which is the main thing an agent needs. It is slightly incomplete on scope boundaries (SDK/version coverage) and the format option, but adequate for a simple read-only lookup.

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 the schema already documents both api_name and the format enum. The description's examples (UIWebView, UIAlertView) duplicate the schema's own example text and it never mentions the format parameter, so it adds essentially no semantic value beyond the structured fields.

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 (check) and resource (Apple API symbol deprecation status), and enumerates the three facts returned: deprecated?, when, and replacement. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like apple_api_availability or apple_what_replaced, which cover overlapping territory, so it stops short of 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?

"Looks up by symbol name (e.g. UIWebView, UIAlertView)" implies the usage context and input shape, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to alternatives such as apple_api_availability or apple_what_replaced for adjacent questions.

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