Draw schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, but the description adds substantial behavior: official API source, non-real-time publication windows, the prizes_pending meaning, a rule never to invent missing numbers, and a disclosure that every result includes ad-bearing links. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 core schedule information is front-loaded, which is good. But the description is a single dense run-on paragraph with heavy parenthetical nesting and bilingual duplication, so it is less scannable and more verbose than necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value context, and it does explain the schedule content, next draw date, notices, publication timing, prizes_pending behavior, and the more links. It does not fully specify the response shape, but it covers the operational caveats an agent needs.

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 schema already lists all game ids and Chinese names, so the baseline is 3. The description adds domain context by mapping game names to draw days and times, but it does not add syntax or format guidance for the single game parameter beyond the schema.

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 states a specific resource, draw schedule, and enumerates exactly what it returns: draw days/times, the next draw date, schedule notices, and publication timing. It is clearly not a results or stats tool, but it never names or distinguishes itself from siblings like latest_draw or list_draws.

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?

It explains the important usage context that data is not real time and that before 21:30 the day's draw is normally missing, which helps an agent interpret results. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to the sibling tools, and no alternative is named.

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