What replaced a deprecated Apple API

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context by disclosing the data provenance ('from the deprecated_message field') and that the response concatenates replacement info with WWDC session listings. It does not discuss coverage limits or what happens when no replacement exists.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the input precondition and names both outputs. Nothing is padding and no sentence fails to earn 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 read-only lookup with a fully described 2-parameter schema, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: input kind, data source, and return composition. The absence of any note on missing-replacement behavior 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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enum on 'format' and examples like UIWebView/UIAlertView. The description restates that the input is a deprecated API symbol but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: given a deprecated symbol, it 'finds what replaced it' and 'lists WWDC sessions introducing the replacement.' That scope is clearly distinct from data-only siblings like apple_api_deprecation and wwdc_find_api_introduction. It loses a point only because it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 phrase 'Given a deprecated Apple API symbol' implicitly states the precondition for use, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. apple_api_deprecation or wwdc_find_api_introduction). Usage is inferable but not routed.

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