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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does state the return value, but it omits edge cases such as empty arrays, handling of ties, input type requirements, or whether the input is mutated. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence. It contains no filler, though the repeated tool name at the start is slightly redundant and the missing parameter/edge-case details are not covered.

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?

Although the tool is conceptually simple, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. The schema exposes no input parameters while the description requests a values array, so the agent cannot determine the correct argument structure. Edge-case and usage context are also absent.

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 input schema defines zero parameters, yet the description instructs the agent to 'Provide values array.' This introduces a parameter that is not represented in the schema, making it unclear how the agent should actually pass the array. The description fails to add meaningful parameter semantics and instead creates a contradiction with the schema.

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 operation: find the maximum value in an array and return the largest element. It is specific enough to distinguish from find-min and find-min-index, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like find-min, find-max-index, or find-min-index. The only implied context is that it is for finding a max value, but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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