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.