4D Results (Malaysia, Singapore, Cambodia)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the data comes from the site's calendar, covers both regular and special draw dates, and explicitly excludes recommendations/forecasts, which guards against misuse.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the resource and its contents. The trailing 'official results only; no forecasts' clause is a useful scope guard rather than filler, though it slightly dilutes the otherwise clean return-value statement.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (draw dates plus operators). Nothing critical is missing, though it does not mention format, time horizon covered, or ordering, which would fully close the loop.

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 document; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed to retrieve the schedule.

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 upcoming 4D draw schedule with regular/special dates and the operators drawing on each date. It is clearly about the schedule rather than results, so an agent can separate it from the results-oriented siblings, 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?

Usage is implied by the 'upcoming schedule' scope and the 'official results only; no number recommendations or forecasts' disclaimer, which tells the agent this is not a prediction tool. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_latest_results or get_results_by_date, leaving the routing to inference.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that only official results are returned and no recommendations/forecasts are produced, but says nothing about return shape, volume, or freshness timing for a tool with no output schema to fall back on.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource before the operator enumeration. The 10-operator list is long but earns its place by defining exactly which operators are covered, which would otherwise be unknowable.

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 output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value. It states what is returned (the newest official draw per operator) but not the structure – e.g. whether each entry carries a draw date, operator identifier, and number set – leaving a gap for a zero-parameter, no-schema 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly conveys that no filtering input is accepted – the operator list is fixed and the result set is implicitly 'all' – so nothing is left ambiguous about what can be passed.

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) and resource (the newest 4D draw result) with an explicit scope: every operator, enumerated by name. The 'latest' + 'every operator' framing naturally separates it from siblings like get_operator_results (single operator) and get_results_by_date (specific date).

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 only implied by the word 'latest' – an agent can infer this is the tool for current results, but no alternative is named and there is no explicit when-to-use vs get_results_by_date or get_operator_results guidance. The 'official results only; no forecasts' line bounds scope but is not routing advice.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds ordering ('newest first') and content scope (official draws, no forecasts), which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about rate limits, freshness, or what happens for an operator with no draws.

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, no filler, with the core resource and return shape front-loaded and the scope caveat appended. Every clause carries information.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (1st, 2nd, 3rd, special, consolation), which is exactly what an agent needs to plan downstream use. The main remaining gap is the absence of any routing guidance among the four sibling result-lookup tools.

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%: both 'operator' (with its full enum) and 'limit' (range 1-30, default 10) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantics about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (returns), the resource (one 4D operator's recent official draw results) and even enumerates the returned number categories, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It differentiates somewhat by emphasizing 'one operator', but it never contrasts itself with near-identical siblings like get_latest_results or get_results_by_date.

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 only guidance offered is a scope boundary ('Official results only; no number recommendations or forecasts'), which is a negative constraint rather than a when-to-use signal. Nothing tells the agent when this tool should be chosen over get_latest_results, get_results_by_date, or get_other_game_results.

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 and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the payload contents (numbers, bonus numbers, jackpot amounts) and by stating the tool returns official results only, with no recommendations or forecasts.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and immediately followed by scope and the official-only constraint. No filler or repetition of 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 carries the burden of describing return content, which it does by naming numbers, bonus numbers and jackpot amounts. Together with the fully documented two-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the enum is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by mapping human-readable game names (Toto 5D/6D/Star, Magnum Life, Da Ma Cai 3+3D, etc.) to the bare slug enum values, easing correct parameter selection.

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 precisely scopes it to 4D-family games 'other than the main draw', enumerating the covered game families. This cleanly separates it from get_latest_results without opening either 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?

Usage is only implied: the reader infers this tool handles the non-main-draw games while siblings like get_latest_results handle the main draw. There is no explicit 'use this when / use X instead' routing or prerequisite 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, idempotentHint, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: an empty result set with a note when no draws occurred, and the restriction to official results only — useful operational context beyond the annotations.

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 zero padding. The core scope is front-loaded, followed by the empty-result edge case and the official-only boundary; every sentence 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 simple one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers scope, edge-case return behavior, and content boundaries. No output schema exists, but the description adequately characterizes what comes back, 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% and the schema already documents the YYYY-MM-DD / MYT format. The description only refers to 'a given calendar date' and adds no format, timezone, or boundary semantics beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 every operator's official 4D draw result') plus the scoping key ('for a given calendar date'), so an agent can distinguish it from get_latest_results and get_operator_results 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?

Usage is implied by the date-scoped framing and the exclusion of 'number recommendations or forecasts', but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over the sibling get_operator_results or get_latest_results. No when-not guidance beyond the exclusions.

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 closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the returned fields (date, operator, prize tier) and the historical-only scope, which is meaningful since there is no output schema. Pagination or empty-result behavior remains unstated.

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 what is returned, followed by the two scope caveats. No filler or repetition; every sentence adds a distinct constraint.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and scope limits, which is close to sufficient. Minor gaps remain around result volume/pagination and behavior when the number has no winning appearances.

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% and the single parameter's leading-zero example is fully documented in the schema. The description's "given 4-digit number" merely restates the parameter without adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: it lists the official 4D draws in which a given 4-digit number appeared, and clarifies it is not a ranking. That clearly separates it from date/operator/latest-result siblings, 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?

"Past winning appearances only" and "Official results only; no number recommendations or forecasts" establish scope and exclusions, which implies the lookup use case. However, it never says when to pick this over get_results_by_date, get_operator_results, or get_latest_results, so alternative routing 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.