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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the exact payload contents (winning numbers, per-hit-level winners and prizes, winning cartons) and the latest-vs-specific default, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence led by 'Use this when', with quoted trigger examples that directly aid intent matching. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and when it applies, while annotations carry the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior for an invalid or out-of-range sorteo number.

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 'sorteo' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the omit-for-latest default. The description's 'latest sorteo or a given one' merely restates that, adding no new format or range semantics, so 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 concrete verb+resource set: returns winning numbers, winners, prize amounts per hit level, and winning cartons for the latest or a specified sorteo. The Telekino/Rekino domain is unambiguous, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with look-alike siblings such as get_results or get_number_info.

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 when-to-use triggers with real user phrasings ('telekino de hoy', 'último sorteo del telekino', 'telekino 2449'), which is strong selection guidance. It offers no when-not conditions or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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