Get indexed Apple documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that content comes from a local index (implying no live network fetch), but says nothing about truncation behavior, missing-path handling, or how format changes the response. Adds some value over annotations, but not much.

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 an inline example and zero filler. It is efficient, though for a four-parameter tool with half its schema undocumented it is arguably under-sized rather than optimally scoped.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry more of the return contract, yet it does not explain markdown vs json output or the body_chars truncation. Annotations cover safety and the retrieval semantics are simple enough that the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 coverage is only 50%: body_chars and include_raw have no description in either schema or prose, leaving truncation length and raw-content inclusion undocumented. The description does add real value for the required param by specifying a 'normalized path' with the concrete example `swiftui/view`, which goes beyond the schema's terse 'Framework path or Apple documentation URL.'

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 and resource ('Return an Apple Developer documentation page') plus the source ('from the local index'), so the agent knows this is a direct retrieval rather than a search. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identically named sibling apple_doc_lookup, leaving the agent to guess which of the two 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 when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives such as apple_doc_lookup or apple_doc_list_framework. The example path is invocation help, not selection guidance, so the agent gets no routing signal.

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