search_api_operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's contribution is "No network request", which usefully signals a local/offline lookup rather than a live API call, but it says nothing about result ordering, truncation, or what happens with an empty query. There is a mild tension with openWorldHint=true, though the open-ended catalog domain arguably explains that flag.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the core action leads, with the coverage list and the no-network note following. The trailing "and more" is filler and the subject-area list is long relative to the payload, but it does double duty as query vocabulary hints.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should say at least what a hit looks like (operation ID, path, method, summary) and how limit/offset page through results. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the gap is moderate rather than severe, but an agent still cannot predict the response shape or how to consume it.

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% across all four parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: query, limit, offset and method are never mentioned or explained. Only the enum on method is self-documenting; the matching semantics of query (substring? keywords? operation ID?) and the paging behavior of limit/offset are left entirely to guesswork, and the domain list only loosely hints at query vocabulary.

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 and resource: searching the official App Store Connect OpenAPI catalog, with an enumeration of covered domains (provisioning, TestFlight, pricing, Xcode Cloud). This clearly separates it from the CRUD-style siblings like update_app_description. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related get_api_operation/read_api/write_api siblings, which is the differentiation an agent most needs here.

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?

"No network request" plus the subject-area list implies this is the discovery step before calling read_api/get_api_operation, but the description never states that workflow explicitly. There is no when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative tools for retrieving a known operation.

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