List draws

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: states the upstream source, the 21:30/22:00 Taiwan-time publication windows, that prizes_pending=true means no prize table rather than no winner, an explicit 'never fabricate missing numbers' rule, and that every result contains ad-bearing links. This is exactly the operational context annotations cannot carry.

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 high-value operational facts are front-loaded, but the ad disclosure is duplicated in English and again in a Chinese parenthetical, and the API-scheduling explanation runs on for two sentences. It is informative but noticeably over-written for the payload it delivers.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by documenting the `more` field, the prizes_pending flag, and the timing conditions under which results will be incomplete. An agent has everything needed to call it and to interpret sparse or pending results.

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%, so game ids, month format, last_n range/default and the bingo-only date are already documented. The description restates the same formats and the at-most-one-of constraint rather than adding new syntax or edge-case meaning, so the 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Official draws of one game') and immediately bounds the scope to a month or the newest N draws. It also names get_draw as the tool for a single draw's prizes, so an agent can separate list-level from draw-level retrieval without opening a schema.

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 explicit conditional routing: game-specific mode selection ('For 賓果賓果 use date or last_n'), and redirects to get_draw when prize tables are needed. It does not address the sibling latest_draw or draw_schedule, so an agent must infer whether last_n=1 should instead be a latest_draw call.

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