TuLotero

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds useful context beyond that: it notes the tool requires no account ('No requiere tener cuenta') and cites SELAE regulation as its source. This goes beyond the annotation's safety hint and provides operational context for the agent.

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 compact and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then gives usage guidance, enumerates supported games, and ends with an account requirement. No filler. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is logical for an agent to quickly extract the key facts.

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 read-only reference tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use, the supported games (which is a full enumeration), and the authentication constraint. Nothing an agent needs to correctly select and call this tool is missing, given its read-only nature.

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?

Input schema descriptions cover both parameters with 100% coverage, but the description adds significant value by enumerating the full list of valid values for the 'juego' parameter (Euromillones, La Primitiva, etc.), which the schema only hints at with examples. For 'tema', the description effectively repeats the schema description but the game list is a meaningful addition.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement of function: provides official game rules (reglas oficiales) covering cost, draw schedule, prize categories, and cashing. It explicitly enumerates the supported games, distinguishing it from sibling tools like resultado_sorteo (draw results) and comprobar_premio (prize checking). The scope is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Úsala cuando pregunten cómo funciona un juego' (use when asked how a game works). It also lists the exact set of games it supports, which implicitly excludes other queries. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it stops short of a full when-not/alternatives statement.

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 and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful extra behavior: it uses the official TuLotero scrutiny service, requires no account, accepts numbers read from a photo, and returns specific prize details. This goes beyond the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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 dense but efficient: the opening clause immediately states purpose and output, and each sentence contributes: how to pass numbers, games supported, photo-read input, and no-account requirement. No filler or repetition of schema-level minutiae. Slightly long first sentence but entirely information-bearing, so it earns its place.

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 tool with 7 params, rich schema annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key operational context: supported games, input shape per game type, draw specification via cuando, and required authentication status. It does not describe error situations or rate limits, but those are not critical for a read-only check tool, especially given annotations cover the safety profile.

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 baseline is 3, and the description adds valuable mapping between game types and parameters (décimos vs apuestas) plus clarifying scope for cuando ('Omítelo para el último celebrado. Pásalo tal cual; no calcules tú la fecha'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 verb and resource: 'Comprueba ... si un décimo o una apuesta tiene premio' and enumerates the exact output fields returned (bruto, retención, neto, categoría, plazo de cobro, combinación ganadora). It also clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like resultado_sorteo and como_se_juega by focusing on prize checking with official TuLotero scrutiny.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you have décimo or apuesta numbers and want to know if it won, and it explicitly lists supported games. It also gives input routing guidance ('Lotería Nacional... pasa los números de décimo' vs 'Juegos de números: pasa cada apuesta'). However, it never explicitly says when NOT to use it or names sibling alternatives.

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?

Las anotaciones ya declaran que es de solo lectura y no destructiva, y la descripción añade valor más allá de eso: indica que no se requiere cuenta, que sin fecha devuelve el último sorteo, que el escrutinio llega en tablas Markdown listas para mostrar, y que también se incluye el próximo sorteo con su bote. No contradice ninguna anotación.

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?

La descripción está bien estructurada: abre con el propósito central, detalla el contenido de la respuesta, enumera los juegos soportados y cierra con dos reglas operativas clave. Cada frase aporta información útil y está ordenada de lo principal a lo secundario.

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?

No hay output schema, pero la descripción compensa explicando qué incluye la respuesta: combinación, bote, reintegros, escrutinio por categorías, premios por número, partidos y signos, y próximo sorteo. También cubre el comportamiento por defecto, el alcance de juegos y la ausencia de autenticación, suficiente para usar la herramienta correctamente.

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?

El esquema ya documenta ambos parámetros con descripciones completas y ejemplos, lo que sitúa la línea base en 3. La descripción general aporta contexto sobre el contenido de la respuesta, pero no añade mucho significado específico sobre los parámetros que no esté ya en el input 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?

La descripción identifica claramente el recurso y la acción: devolver el resultado de un sorteo ya celebrado, enumerando el contenido (combinación ganadora, bote, reintegros, escrutinio, próximos sorteos). Este nivel de detalle permite distinguirlo de los hermanos: no es 'cómo se juega', ni 'comprobar un boleto', ni el calendario de sorteos.

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?

Explica cuándo usar la herramienta: consultar resultados de un sorteo ya finalizado, y señala el comportamiento por defecto ('Sin fecha devuelve el último celebrado') y que no requiere cuenta. No menciona explícitamente alternativas como comprobar_premio, pero el contexto es lo bastante claro como para que un agente elija correctamente.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: no account required, default unfiltered behavior, and the specific fields returned. This is meaningful for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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, front-loaded with the core value proposition, and every sentence contributes: output fields, default behavior, supported games, and auth requirement. The long game list is justified and not filler.

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 simple read-only tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: default behavior, return fields, valid game names, and auth requirements. The schema handles parameter details like 'cuando' values, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by enumerating the full set of supported games for the 'juego' parameter and explaining the no-argument default. This complements the schema without simply repeating it.

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 what the tool does: it returns upcoming draws and jackpot amounts, with date/time, price, and closing time. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like resultado_sorteo and comprobar_premio by focusing on upcoming draws rather than past results or prize checking.

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 gives clear default usage: 'Sin argumentos devuelve los de hoy y los próximos días de todos los juegos.' It also lists supported games and notes that no account is required. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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