search_apple_docs

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, implying no side effects. It adds context about the scope of search but does not elaborate on other behavioral traits like rate limits or auth requirements. With annotations covering the read-only nature, the description provides sufficient additional context for a search tool.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value. It avoids unnecessary detail and wastes no words.

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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and alternatives adequately. It does not mention pagination or result format, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (query and type), including tips and examples. The tool description itself does not add new parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it further.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching Apple Developer Documentation for APIs, frameworks, guides, and samples. It differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning alternatives (get_sample_code and WWDC tools) and their use cases, making it easy for an agent to understand what this tool is for.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Best for finding specific APIs, classes, or methods.' It also tells when to use alternatives and includes tips in the parameter descriptions about avoiding generic terms. This helps the agent choose correctly between siblings.

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