Search Apple Docs

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are links grouped by section, 'all' triggers two requests, searches are serialized 15 s apart because Apple returns empty for rapid ones, and 'all' includes a capped 5-session WWDC block. These are operational details an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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-loaded with purpose and return shape, then filters, then the reading alternative, then rate behavior. Dense but each clause carries information; only slight compression of the rate-limit sentence could tighten it further.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully specifies the return shape (title, framework, type, one-line summary, grouped by section) plus the alternative reader and rate constraints. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 enum values are already documented, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: 'all' sends two searches (rate/time implications) and the WWDC Sessions section behavior. This goes past restating the enum, though it does not add syntax guidance for query.

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 (search developer.apple.com via Apple's search API) and immediately distinguishes the return type from content-returning siblings: 'Returns links, not content'. An agent knows exactly what this produces versus get_apple_doc_content.

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 names the alternative for reading results ('Read a result with get_apple_doc_content') and explains what each type filter covers, so the agent can pick the right scope without guessing. It also routes WWDC Sessions results to get_wwdc_video.

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