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 search functionality and scope but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, result format, pagination, or error conditions. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, specifying its best use case, and providing alternative guidance. There's no wasted text, and the most important information (what the tool does) comes first.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for a 2-parameter search tool, the description provides good purpose and usage guidance but lacks parameter details and behavioral context. It's adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for reliable tool invocation.

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%, meaning neither parameter has documentation in the schema. The description mentions searching for 'specific APIs, classes, or methods' which hints at the 'query' parameter's purpose, but provides no guidance on the 'type' parameter or any parameter syntax/format. It doesn't adequately compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Apple Developer Documentation') with explicit scope ('APIs, frameworks, guides, and samples'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming alternatives for different use cases (get_sample_code for sample code projects, WWDC tools for videos).

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 ('Best for finding specific APIs, classes, or methods') and when to use alternatives instead ('For browsing sample code projects, use get_sample_code. For WWDC videos, use the dedicated WWDC tools'). This directly addresses sibling differentiation.

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