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.