get_lottery_by_code

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates a read operation, but fails to mention any side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal.

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, clear sentence that gets straight to the point. It is efficient, though it lacks additional context. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, but could be improved with more details.

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 lack of output schema and the presence of sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return format, error handling, or how it differs from similar tools. A more complete description would include what data is returned and usage tips.

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% for the single parameter, which already includes an example ('2025132'). The tool description reiterates the parameter's purpose ('按期号') but adds no extra semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: querying double-color ball lottery data by period number. It uses a specific verb ('查询') and resource ('双色球开奖数据'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_lottery_by_date_range' and 'get_latest_lottery'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action, missing context about preferred use cases or conditions that would lead an agent to choose this over sibling tools.

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