ranked_draws_available_prizes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It excellently details caching (24h), local limits (100 rows, 256 KiB), truncation notices, single GET request behavior, no auto-pagination, and refusal of oversized records. This is exceptionally transparent and leaves little ambiguity about side effects or limitations.

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 approximately 120 words and covers many points, but it repeats the 100-row/256 KiB limit twice ('locally bounded to 100 rows and 256 KiB' and 'Array responses are locally limited to 100 rows and 256 KiB'). The phrase 'Does not auto-fetch continuation pages' is awkwardly appended without a period. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be tightened by removing redundancy and clarifying the input statement.

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 read tool with no parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral context: caching, size limits, truncation, and lack of pagination. It does not describe the return format, but no output schema is present. The main gap is the misleading statement about required inputs and filters, which undermines completeness by introducing a false expectation. Otherwise, it is quite thorough.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage trivially. However, the description states 'Required inputs reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements' and mentions 'declared filters are forwarded as supplied,' which strongly implies parameters exist. This directly contradicts the empty schema and misleads the agent into expecting inputs. Since there are no params to explain, the description adds confusion rather than value.

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 reads currently available ranked draw prizes, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like frontier_draws_available_prizes and ranked_draws_recent_prizes by the 'ranked' and 'available' qualifiers, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The phrase 'static-ish metadata response' adds useful context about the nature of the data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., ranked_draws_recent_prizes, frontier_draws_available_prizes). It does not mention when not to use it or what alternatives exist. The caching and truncation details are behavioral, not usage guidance, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name alone.

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