Find Similar APIs

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

readOnlyHint already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are read from the page's JSON, prioritization tiers (deprecation note 10/10, See Also 8/10, Topics 6/10), and the clarifying note that scores reflect provenance rather than similarity comparison. This is meaningful context beyond the annotation.

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 content is front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is delivered as one long, heavily nested sentence with parenthetical scores and quoted enum values, making it denser than it needs to be.

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, fully-documented-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough about what comes back (ranked alternatives with provenance scores) and how depth affects results. It is close to complete, lacking only sibling routing.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the depth enum. The description only adds marginal nuance (which groups each depth reaches), 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 opening 'Alternatives to one API' states the resource and outcome clearly, and the rest explains how alternatives are sourced. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from the obvious sibling get_related_apis, so an agent must infer the division of labor.

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?

Usage is only implied through the searchDepth mechanics (medium/deep reaching Topics groups, deep reading See Also of first results). There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over get_related_apis or search_apple_docs, nor any when-not condition.

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