Search HIG

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it accepts natural-language queries and can filter by topic/component/pattern, but it does not disclose details like result ranking, pagination, or how the search handles broad queries. This is acceptable given the annotations, but not rich behavioral context.

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 description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then provides concrete examples. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 search tool with full schema coverage and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that results are returned as a list or that the query is free-form, but the examples already convey that. The lack of an output schema is not a gap because the description's job is not to explain return values.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (query, limit, platform). The description adds the notion of natural-language queries and examples, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Apple's Human Interface Guidelines') and clarifies the scope with examples of topics ('touch targets', 'tab bars', 'Liquid Glass'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like hig_get or hig_toc by indicating it is a search operation over the guidelines.

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 description implies when to use this tool: when you have a topic, component, pattern, or design question. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like hig_get or hig_toc, but the examples and phrasing provide clear context for a search-oriented use case.

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