Search-Apple-Docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'Supports enhanced analysis options for comprehensive API understanding,' it doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (e.g., full text, structured data, metadata), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or how it differs from simply fetching a webpage. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The subsequent sentences add useful context about usage timing and best use cases. While efficient, the mention of 'enhanced analysis options' could be more specific to justify its place, but overall it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters affect results, or provide enough behavioral context for a tool that presumably fetches and processes documentation content. The description covers purpose and basic usage but leaves too many gaps for effective agent operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 5 parameters. The description mentions 'enhanced analysis options' and lists use cases like 'comprehensive API understanding,' but doesn't explain what any of the parameters (url, includeRelatedApis, includeReferences, includeSimilarApis, includePlatformAnalysis) actually do or how they affect the output. This leaves parameters semantically undocumented despite the high parameter count.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed content from a specific Apple Developer Documentation page.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed content from a specific Apple Developer Documentation page'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'get_related_apis' or 'get_sample_code' beyond mentioning it's for 'full documentation' after using 'search_apple_docs'.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this after search_apple_docs to get full documentation' and 'Best for: reading API details, understanding usage, checking availability.' This gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool (after a search, for detailed API info) and its intended use cases. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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