Get Technology Overviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral context: results are links rather than article contents, ordering follows Apple's own order, and an unknown category falls back to the full list. Return formatting is only lightly sketched (tree vs flat list), so it stops just short of 5.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then mode behavior, then the hand-off to get_apple_doc_content — no wasted sentences. The prose is densely packed with semicolons, which is efficient but slightly harder to parse than a cleanly separated set of clauses.

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?

With no output schema, the description does most of the work by explaining that entries are links in an ordered tree or flat list, each tagged with its collection. It falls short only on pagination/limit interaction with the two modes, which the agent must infer from the schema's limit field.

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 each field is already documented, but the description adds mode-level meaning the schema doesn't: category yields a whole collection plus children, searchQuery yields a flat cross-collection match list, and includeSubcategories governs whether articles appear at all. This meaningfully exceeds the baseline 3 for a fully-documented schema.

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+resource: retrieving Apple's Technology Overviews guides as a tree of collections and articles. It also distinguishes itself from the siblings by naming get_apple_doc_content as the tool for reading the actual articles, so an agent needn't open other schemas to disambiguate.

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?

Explicitly routes between modes: category returns one collection with everything in it, searchQuery returns a flat list of matching entries, and empty/unknown values return the full list. It also states the read-elsewhere alternative ('read one with get_apple_doc_content'), closing the loop on when not to use this tool.

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