4D Results (Malaysia, Singapore, Cambodia)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the data comes 'from the site's calendar' and is official-only, but says nothing about freshness, caching, or whether the schedule is refreshed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence names the resource and its contents, with the disclaimer tacked on to bound scope. No wasted phrasing, though the closing disclaimer is more of a general site policy than tool-specific guidance.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so ('regular and special draw dates' plus operators per date). For a simple read-only lookup this is sufficient; only freshness/refresh behavior 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter detail.

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 ('Returns the official upcoming 4D draw schedule') and enumerates the payload (regular/special draw dates plus which operators draw on each date). This is clearly distinct from the results-oriented siblings, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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 by 'upcoming draw schedule' and the disclaimer 'Official results only; no number recommendations or forecasts,' which sets a scope boundary. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus the sibling results tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the forecast caveat.

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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: the freshness guarantee ('newest'), the full operator coverage including Perdana's afternoon draw, and a negative scope declaration that results are official only with no forecasts. It stops short of stating staleness or caching behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by a brief boundary clause. The operator enumeration is long but earns its place by defining exactly what 'every operator' covers.

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 read tool, the description covers what is returned (latest official draw per operator), who is covered, and what is out of scope. An agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The enumerated operator list is scope information rather than parameter semantics and is not misrepresented as input.

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 ('Returns the official newest 4D draw result') and scopes it precisely to 'every operator,' enumerating all ten operators plus Perdana's afternoon draw. The 'every operator' framing implicitly separates it from the sibling get_operator_results, but it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 by 'newest ... for every operator' versus siblings like get_results_by_date and get_operator_results, and the closing clause 'Official results only; no number recommendations or forecasts' usefully rules out a class of misuse. However, no alternative is named and no condition for choosing this over get_results_by_date is given.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds that results are returned newest first and that only official results are provided (no recommendations or forecasts), which is useful context. But it doesn't add much beyond that—no return format, pagination, or failure behavior—so a 3 is appropriate with annotations already covering the core safety profile.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clarifying constraint. No wasted words, clear structure.

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, two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, scope, and ordering. The only minor gap is no explicit mention of the alternative retrieval tools, but that's not strictly necessary given the clear purpose.

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%: both limit (with range, default) and operator (with enum) are fully described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Returns), resource (4D operator's most recent official draw results), and scope/detail (1st, 2nd, 3rd, special, consolation numbers; newest first). The sibling family includes similar retrieval tools (get_latest_results, get_other_game_results, get_results_by_date), and the description's explicit mention of 'one 4D operator' and 'official results' helps distinguish it from those alternatives without opening schemas.

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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving an operator's recent official draw results. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to choose this over get_latest_results or get_other_game_results. There's no named alternative, so it's clear context but lacks explicit when-not or alternative guidance.

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, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what is returned (numbers, bonus numbers, jackpot amounts) and constraining the tool to official results with no forecasts, though it says nothing about data freshness or draw coverage.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the long game enumeration and the official-results caveat both earning their place. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return-value burden by naming numbers, bonus numbers and jackpot amounts. The limit parameter is left entirely to the schema, and freshness/latency of results is unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a results-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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by mapping enum slugs to real-world game names (Toto 5D/6D/Star/Power/Supreme, Magnum Life/Jackpot/Gold, Da Ma Cai 3+3D/Jackpot, Singapore Toto). That mapping helps the agent pick the right slug.

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 (returns official results) and scopes it precisely to 4D-family games other than the main draw, enumerating the supported games. An agent can distinguish it from get_latest_results or get_operator_results without opening any 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?

The scope clause ('games other than the main draw') gives clear context for when this tool applies, and 'Official results only; no number recommendations or forecasts' rules out a misuse class. However, no sibling tool is named as the alternative for main-draw results, so the 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: an empty result set with a note when no draws occurred, and the explicit exclusion of recommendations/forecasts. Return field structure is still unspecified.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the empty-result edge case and the scope exclusion. Mild redundancy between 'official 4D draw result' and 'Official results only', but nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the main gap an agent faces: what happens on a date with no draws. Without an output schema it could say more about the per-operator result shape, but the essentials are present.

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% and the schema already documents the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and timezone (MYT). The description only restates 'for a given calendar date' and adds no format, range, or edge-case detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource (returns 4D draw results) with clear scope qualifiers: 'every operator's' and 'for a given calendar date'. This implicitly separates it from get_operator_results (single operator) and get_latest_results (most recent), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 a scope boundary ('official results only; no number recommendations or forecasts') but never states when to prefer this tool over get_latest_results, get_operator_results, or get_draw_schedule. Usage is implied by the date parameter rather than guided.

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 establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the lower bar applies. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those flags — that output is strictly historical/official results and explicitly not predictive or ranked — plus a clear statement of what the tool will not return.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by scope and provenance constraints. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler or repetition.

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 one parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields (date, operator, prize tier) and clarifying the historical-only scope. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates 'given 4-digit number' and adds no format guidance (such as leading-zero handling) beyond what the schema already provides in its own description.

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 ('Lists every official 4D draw in which a given 4-digit number appeared') plus the returned fields (date, operator, prize tier). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_latest_results, get_results_by_date and get_operator_results, which all key off date/operator rather than the number itself.

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 clear scope boundaries: 'Past winning appearances only, not a ranking' and 'Official results only; no number recommendations or forecasts' tell the agent when this tool applies and what it must not be used for. It does not, however, name a sibling as the alternative for lookups by date or operator, so routing between siblings 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.