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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds what they cannot: the exact payload returned (all 20 positions, cabeza, draw number, letters), the constraint that at least one filter must be supplied, and the host-widget behavior rule about not re-tabulating numbers the user already sees.

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-loaded with the usage condition, followed by return content, filter rules, and an output-format instruction; every sentence carries information. The example-phrase list and inline turno times add length, but they are functional rather than 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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the returned fields (20 positions, cabeza, draw number, letters) and the accepted filter vocabulary. Combined with the annotations and the widget-handling instruction, an agent has everything needed to invoke and answer 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% (baseline 3), but the schema defines no enums, so the description adds real semantics: the enumerated jurisdiction values and the turno keys with their clock times (previa 10:15, nocturna 21:00), plus the 'at least one is required' rule that the schema does not express. It does not add much beyond the schema for the date parameter.

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 with scope: retrieve the full pizarra (20 numbers) of a quiniela or turno. The parenthetical '(the pizarra: 20 numbers)' and the contrast with the narrower get_cabezas / get_number_info siblings make it unmistakable which results set is returned.

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 concrete trigger utterances ('pizarra de la nocturna', 'los 20 números de la Provincia') and states the filter requirement (jurisdiction and/or turno, at least one). It also tells the agent how to behave when a widget is rendered. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead when only a cabeza or a single number is wanted.

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