apple_list_accessibility_declarations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' plus 'one per device family' discloses the read-only nature and the cardinality semantics of the result, but says nothing about pagination, permission requirements, or what happens for an app with no declarations.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Only mild redundancy in 'for an app' given appId is the sole required parameter.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers intent and result cardinality but not the returned declaration fields or empty-result behavior. Adequate to call it, thin for interpreting results.

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 100% with a single required appId, so the schema already documents the only parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond it (e.g., whether appId is the numeric Apple app ID or a bundle ID), 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (accessibility nutrition label declarations) scoped to an app, which cleanly separates it from sibling mutators like apple_create_accessibility_declaration and apple_delete_accessibility_declaration. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation comes only from the verb.

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 read/list framing implies when to use it, and 'one per device family' hints at what the result set looks like. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over fetching a single declaration, nor any prerequisite or exclusion stated.

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