Lottery Numbers

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: prize amounts are omitted for powerball/megamillions because they depend on state and multiplier, and the response is only a drawstoday.com link carrying no result itself. That last disclosure is the kind of return-shape warning an agent needs, though failure modes (invalid numbers, unsupported draws) go unmentioned.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence carries distinct information (default draw, per-game return differences, response is a link). The middle sentence is dense with clauses but nothing is redundant.

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 correctly takes on the burden of explaining what comes back (a link, not a result) and why prize values are absent for two of three games. What's missing is error/failure behavior and any hint about the link's expiry or stability, minor for a read-only lookup tool.

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 coverage is 75% and already documents the numbers/extra_number ranges and per-game applicability, so the description need only fill gaps. It does so by explaining that 'draw' defaults to the latest draw, which the schema leaves to a get_draw cross-reference, and by naming the games that ignore extra_number.

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 ('compare your numbers with a draw') and enumerates what each game variant returns (rank/prize for kr645, match only for powerball/megamillions). It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like get_draw or pick_numbers, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description notes the draw defaults to the latest 'unless you give one', which tells the agent it can be omitted, and points at get_draw for draw formatting. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_draw or the other siblings.

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

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations by disclosing the critical quirk that the response is a drawstoday.com link and 'carries no result' — information an agent would otherwise get wrong. It also names the upstream data sources, which signals freshness and provenance.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then per-game argument format, then the return-value caveat. Minor redundancy with the schema's draw description is the only waste.

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 correctly takes on the return-value burden (a link, not the numbers) and identifies data sources. It omits behavior for invalid/out-of-range draw identifiers or missing games, a small but real gap.

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 coverage is 50% and the description restates the draw-parameter format largely as the schema already documents it, adding only the Korean term 회차. With `game` self-explanatory via enum, this is the expected baseline rather than added value.

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 resource (winning numbers) plus scope (latest draw or one past draw), and enumerates the three supported games with their identifier conventions. An agent can distinguish this from pick_numbers (generate) or check_ticket (verify) without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly instructs how to select the two modes: supply a draw number/date for a past draw, or omit for the latest. It does not explicitly name when a sibling like check_ticket would be the better call, but the context for correct invocation is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations: the result page shows the seed that reproduces the draw, and 'the answer is a drawstoday.com link where the result is shown; the answer itself carries no result.' That output behavior is not encoded in annotations or schema.

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 purpose and main modes are front-loaded, and every sentence carries useful information. The long parenthetical enumeration of game codes is dense but necessary for parameter clarity, so the definition is appropriately sized though not maximally crisp.

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 must explain the return behavior, and it does: the answer is a drawstoday.com link and the result page carries the seed. It also covers both game and custom modes, set limits, and seed-based reproduction. The main remaining gap is minimal guidance on error or fallback cases, but the core call semantics are 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 88%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by expanding every game enum code with its real-world lottery name and notes (e.g., 'megamillions (Mega Millions (USA, matrix since 2025-04-08))'), and by explaining the custom format fields (count, min, max, extra_count, extra_max) and seed reproducibility. That goes beyond the raw schema enum values.

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 states a specific action ('Random numbers for a lottery game') and resource, and mentions the 1-to-10 sets limit and named-game/custom modes. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like check_ticket or get_draw, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explains the two primary usage modes ('either name a game ... or give your own format with game "custom"'), which implies when each parameter path applies. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus check_ticket, get_draw, or other siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds the one behavior an agent could not guess: the tool returns no number, only a link the human must tap, and the agent must pass it on. It does not address whether repeated calls yield the same link, which matters given idempotentHint=true.

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?

Three tight sentences: identity first, then the surprising mechanism, then the required agent action. No padding, and the link-not-number fact is front-loaded where it counts.

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?

For a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies everything needed to call it and hand off correctly, including what comes back and what to do with 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because none exists.

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 concrete verb+resource: it draws a 'personal two-digit number' from the Prismtect prism, and makes clear it returns a link rather than the number. That implicitly separates it from siblings like random_integer and flip_coin, which hand back values directly, but no sibling is named.

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?

Gives explicit user-intent triggers ('a lucky number, a number of their own or a number for today'), which is strong context for picking this over random_integer. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming the plain-random alternative for users who just want any number.

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

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new context: the actual draw happens off-tool on prismtect.com, the returned link is valid for 30 days, and the value constraints (min 0/1, max 99, at most 8 numbers). It doesn't say what happens when an invalid sentence or format is supplied, or whether links can be regenerated.

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 target user and the deliverable (one link), then constraints and expiry. Mostly efficient, though the ranges sentence repeats what the schema enforces and could be trimmed.

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?

For a seven-parameter link-builder with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (a single URL) and its 30-day lifetime, plus the delegation of number drawing. A brief note on the return value's exact form and error behavior would close the remaining gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description's restatement ('the lottery format (a game, or custom count and max with optional extras)') and the range summary mostly duplicate schema constraints rather than adding semantics such as how a game preset interacts with supplied count/max.

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 concrete verb-and-resource: it produces one prismtect.com link encoding a user's sentence, and explicitly says 'this tool makes no numbers,' which distinguishes it from number-generating siblings such as pick_numbers. It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 opening sentence gives a clear use case ('a user who wants lottery numbers drawn from a sentence of their own'), including the kinds of sentences accepted (wish, name, question). There are no exclusion cases or named alternatives telling an agent when to pick a sibling tool instead.

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