Search-Apple-Docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function and scope but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it doesn't fully compensate for the absence of structured behavioral data.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of three sentences that each add value: the first defines the purpose, the second differentiates from siblings, and the third provides usage guidance. There is no wasted text 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It excels in purpose and usage but lacks parameter semantics and behavioral details. Without an output schema, the description doesn't explain return values, leaving gaps in understanding how to interpret results.

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?

The description provides no information about the four parameters (framework, beta, searchQuery, limit). With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter details in the description, the agent has no semantic guidance beyond the parameter names. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple undocumented parameters.

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 with specific verbs ('browse complete sample projects') and resources ('from Apple'), distinguishing it from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with 'search_apple_docs which returns code snippets.' It specifies the scope as 'full working examples demonstrating best practices and implementation patterns.'

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Different from search_apple_docs which returns code snippets. Use for learning by example.' This clearly defines the context (learning by example) and names a specific sibling tool for comparison, helping the agent choose appropriately.

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