max_float

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a value ('Get the maximum finite floating-point value'), implying it's a read-only operation without side effects. However, it lacks details on potential errors, performance, or return format (e.g., numeric type). The description adds basic context but misses behavioral specifics like precision or limitations.

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: the first sentence directly states the purpose, and the second adds domain/category context. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the tool's scope. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning sibling tools, but 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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on the return value (e.g., that it's a float) and any edge cases (e.g., how it differs from 'infinity'). For a basic tool, this is minimal viable, but more context would improve usability.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. This meets the baseline for a tool with no parameters, as there is nothing to compensate for.

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 the maximum finite floating-point value. Largest representable float.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('maximum finite floating-point value'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'infinity' or 'min_float', which slightly reduces clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a domain ('arithmetic') and category ('general'), but this is too vague to help an agent decide between this and similar tools like 'infinity' (for infinite values) or 'min_float' (for minimum values). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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