maximum

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. While 'Find the larger' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, it doesn't specify error handling (e.g., for non-numeric inputs), performance characteristics, or return format details. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: 'Find the larger of two numbers.' The parenthetical domain/category adds minimal but relevant context without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted verbiage.

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 (two numeric inputs, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., the larger number, an error for equal inputs), behavioral nuances, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a basic arithmetic tool, more context on usage and output would be helpful.

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% description coverage, with two required parameters ('a' and 'b') documented only as numbers. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying they are 'two numbers' for comparison. Since schema coverage is low, the description doesn't compensate with additional details about parameter meaning, constraints, or examples.

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: 'Find the larger of two numbers.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('two numbers'), and domain/category context. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'max_list' or 'max_float' that might serve similar comparison purposes.

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 implied usage through the domain/category context ('Domain: arithmetic, Category: comparison'), suggesting this is for numerical comparisons. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'max_list' (for lists) or 'greater_than' (for boolean comparisons), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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