max_doc

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the data source, why it exists (2016 docs retired), staleness caveats, and that results come from a crawled local corpus. It omits the return shape and any performance/rate considerations, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and well-organized into rationale, routing guidance, and args. The 'Why local' paragraph is longer than strictly needed but carries genuinely useful provenance context for trusting results.

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, the description should hint at return values; snippet_chars indirectly conveys that hits include surrounding context, but the overall result shape (pages, ranking) is not described. For a simple read-only search this is nearly complete.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does — query is documented as case-insensitive with concrete examples, limit as max matching pages, snippet_chars as characters of surrounding context. Only defaults and value ranges are left undocumented.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource — searching a local copy of the MAXScript Reference — and the body makes clear it is prose documentation, not live API reflection, distinguishing it from max_api/max_api_search.

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?

Explicitly names the use case ('how do I use X' / 'what are the arguments of Y') and the alternatives (max_api / max_check) with the condition that selects them ('does THIS Max have it' — prose can be stale, the running process cannot). Nothing is left to inference.

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