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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the content is sourced from SELAE regulations and no account is needed. It stops short of describing output format or length, which is acceptable given the low-risk read nature.

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-loads the purpose, then examples, exclusions and the supported-game list — every sentence carries information. It is fairly dense but not padded, and the game enumeration, while long, is necessary given there is no enum in the schema.

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 does the work of describing what the caller receives (rules, price, calendar, prize categories, payout). The only gap is the unresolved probability contradiction and no guidance on answer length, but for an informational read-only tool it is otherwise 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 coverage is 100%, so 'tema' and 'juego' are already documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The description reinforces the answer facets (precio, calendario, premios, cobro) that map to 'tema', but it also says probabilities are NOT included while the schema lists 'probabilidad' as a valid 'tema' value — a mild inconsistency that undermines rather than helps parameter understanding.

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+resource: 'Reglas oficiales de un juego, con la normativa de SELAE citada', and enumerates exactly what the answer covers (qué se juega, cuánto cuesta, cuándo se sortea, premios, cobro). This clearly separates it from siblings like resultado_sorteo (results) and comprobar_premio (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?

Provides concrete example questions and exclusions ('No incluye probabilidades ni recomienda números', 'No requiere tener cuenta'), giving strong context for when to reach for it. It does not name the sibling tools or spell out the fallback when a user actually wants results or a prize check, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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