get_all_lottery_history

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately states the tool retrieves all historical first prize data without parameters, but lacks details on potential rate limits, data volume, or whether results are paginated. Adequate for a simple query.

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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope (time range). No extraneous words. While very concise, it could optionally add a brief usage note, but it's already well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the resource, verb, and time range. However, for a tool that retrieves all history, a note about potential response size or structure would improve completeness.

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?

No parameters exist, so the input schema is effectively complete. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but none is needed. Baseline score for 0-param tools is 4 per guidelines, and this is appropriately concise.

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 clearly states the verb ('get'), the resource ('all historical first prize data of Double Color Ball'), and the scope ('from 2013 to present'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_lottery_by_code' or 'get_lottery_by_date_range' by being the comprehensive historical query.

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 provides minimal guidance. It implies use for fetching all historical first prize data but does not specify when to prefer this over siblings (e.g., 'get_lottery_by_date_range') or when not to use it (e.g., due to data size).

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