Get Platform Compatibility

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

With only readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well: it discloses per-platform version ranges, Apple's note text, minimum versions, and the special 'deprecated on every supported platform' flag. It stops short of covering failure modes or how the page JSON is fetched, but adds genuine 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?

Two sentences, but the first is a dense run-on whose front-loaded clause ('Where one API is available, from its page's JSON') reads awkwardly before the useful content. All the material earns its place, yet the structure could be far cleaner.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must—and does—explain what comes back, including the deprecation flag and the framework compare mode. It omits guidance on includeRelated and the expected URL form, minor gaps for a single-resource read tool with full schema coverage.

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% with only 3 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's note on compareMode "framework" largely restates the schema's own enum description, and it never mentions includeRelated, so it adds little semantic value over the structured fields.

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 the resource (an API's platform availability from its page JSON) and enumerates exactly what is returned: per-platform introduced/deprecated versions, Apple's note, minimum versions, and a deprecation flag. The awkward opening ('Where one API is available') slightly muddies the verb, but an agent can tell this apart from search_apple_docs or get_related_apis.

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?

It gives one routing hint — compareMode "framework" runs the same check with related APIs included — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs siblings like get_related_apis or find_similar_apis, and no prerequisites (e.g. that apiUrl must be a developer.apple.com documentation URL). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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