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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that the tool returns the schedule and identifies recurring draw days and time, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose the output shape, how many upcoming draws are returned, or any edge cases such as holiday changes.

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 front-loaded sentence that quickly delivers the core behavior. The closing source reference adds credibility but is not strictly actionable for invoking the tool, so it slightly reduces the efficiency score.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the resource, the schedule, and the timezone. Minor gaps remain around return structure and limits of the calendar data, but these are low-impact given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. With no params, baseline 4 applies, and the description correctly omits irrelevant parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retorna') and a concrete resource ('agenda dos próximos sorteios da Loteria Federal'), with added detail on draw days and time. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_resultado_federal and get_resultado_hoje, which concern results rather than the upcoming schedule.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving future draw dates, not past results, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusion or alternative tool is named, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-like operation ('Retorna') and adds that the data source is curated by deunobicho.online. However, it does not disclose update frequency, whether the data is cached, or any limitations on freshness, which would be useful for a current-quotes tool.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the core operation and resource, then adds a brief list of examples and the source. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource, the modalities covered, and the data source. It falls slightly short by not describing the return structure or the format/units of the quotations, which an agent would need to interpret the result.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed; the description adds nothing about parameters, but nothing is missing either.

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 verb ('Retorna') and a specific resource ('cotações atuais das modalidades do jogo do bicho'), and enumerates the modalities included (grupo, dezena, centena, milhar, milhar-centena). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on results, groups, dreams, and calendar 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 context is clear — this tool returns current betting odds, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria or sibling tools for comparison.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by explicitly stating the operation is a read/retrieval ('Retorna') and by enumerating the returned data: animal name, four consecutive tens, and canonical URL. It does not disclose error behavior or access requirements, but for a simple public lookup the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds compact, relevant detail about the output. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, fully constrained by the schema, and no output schema. The description compensates by naming the output fields and the URL. Minor gaps remain around not-found/error behavior, but the description gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its response.

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 documents 'n' with range constraints and examples (1 = Avestruz, 25 = Vaca). The description reinforces the 1-25 range and ties the parameter to the returned group data, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Retorna') and resource ('dados de um grupo do jogo do bicho'), and further specifies the lookup key (number 1-25) and the returned fields (animal name, four tens, canonical URL). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which cover lottery results, dreams, quotes, and calendar 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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over siblings such as get_resultado_federal or get_sonho. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references, so an agent gets no help with tool selection beyond the literal purpose.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'Retorna' plus the curated-content note conveys a read-only, informational operation. It does not detail output format or length, but for a zero-parameter static content tool this is a minor omission.

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 two sentences, with the essential verb and scope in the first clause and supporting content details immediately after. The attribution phrase is short and does not dilute the message.

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 no-input informational tool, the description covers the main return content: chronology, founding fact, legal evolution, and cultural milestones. Without an output schema, it would be slightly stronger with an explicit note on response format, but nothing essential for selecting this tool is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds content meaning rather than parameter syntax, and no parameter information is missing.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Retorna a cronologia histórica do jogo do bicho' and then enumerates the exact content (founding in 1892, legal evolution, cultural milestones). This content focus clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as get_resultado_federal or get_legalidade, even without naming them.

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 historical-chronology scope provides a clear usage context: an agent should call this tool for historical/factual background on jogo do bicho. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what the tool returns (legal status), the relevant legislation, and the source ('deunobicho.online'). It does not describe the output format or whether the answer is static text, but for a parameterless informational tool this is a minor gap.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and then includes authoritative legal references and provenance. Every phrase earns its place with no filler.

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 zero-parameter, static information tool, the description covers what it returns and the legal basis. It could briefly mention the output shape or an 'informational only' caveat, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter meanings to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately adds domain context rather than parameter syntax.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retorna'), a precise resource ('status legal do jogo do bicho no Brasil'), and legal references that identify its topic. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which cover results, dreams, groups, and quotes.

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 context of a legal-status query is clear from the resource and legal citations, so an agent can tell when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling covers legal status, so the implied use case is sufficient.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does meaningful work: it states the content is human-curated ('Curadoria humana'), sourced from deunobicho.online, and explicitly non-deterministic. This prevents an agent from misrepresenting the tip as a guaranteed result — valuable behavioral context beyond any structured field. It doesn't cover return format or failure modes, but the core nature disclosure is strong.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs in the content breakdown, source, and non-deterministic caveat. It is slightly dense but every clause earns its place; nothing is wasted.

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 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it enumerates the expected return components (grupo, bicho, dezenas, centena/milhar) and clarifies the data's editorial nature. It could mention when the tip is published or refreshed, but 'do dia' already implies daily availability.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and no additional parameter guidance is needed or expected.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retorna' with a clear resource 'palpite editorial do dia' and enumerates the content components (grupo, bicho, dezenas + centena/milhar). The word 'editorial' cleanly distinguishes it from sibling result tools like get_resultado_hoje and get_resultado_federal, which return actual draws rather than curated tips.

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 phrase 'não é previsão determinística' implicitly signals this tool is for editorial tips rather than actual results, suggesting when not to treat its output as factual. However, it never names sibling alternatives or gives explicit selection conditions, leaving usage to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful context by stating the data is from an official source, curated by deunobicho.online, and under CC-BY-4.0. It does not disclose freshness/caching behavior or clarify that this is a read-only query, though these are less critical for a zero-parameter retrieval tool.

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?

Two concise sentences; the first is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the second adds relevant provenance/license context in minimal words. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately specifies return content (five prizes and corresponding animal groups) and source. A minor gap is the lack of any information about the response structure or how this tool relates to the similarly named sibling.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema burden. The description explains what the result contains rather than parameter details, which is the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retorna o resultado atual da Loteria Federal da Caixa' and adds detail on content ('5 prêmios' and 'grupos correspondentes do jogo do bicho'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling get_resultado_hoje, but the resource is clearly the Federal 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?

The phrase 'resultado atual' gives an implied trigger for use when the agent needs the current official Federal Lottery result. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or comparisons with siblings like get_resultado_hoje or get_calendario_federal, leaving when-not-to-use ambiguous.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source (deunobicho.online, an editorial portal) and the qualifier 'conhecidos' (known draws), which hints at potential limitations (e.g., not guaranteed real-time). However, it does not mention the return format, what happens if no draws are available, or any rate limits.

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 two short, dense sentences with no fluff. The main action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the source is appended in the second. Every word serves a purpose.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential use case: what it returns and from where. It lacks explicit detail about the response shape, but given the simplicity of the tool and the clear scope, the description is adequately complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 for 0-param tools applies here; the description appropriately focuses on the action and scope rather than adding meaningless parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retorna') and resource ('todos os sorteios de hoje') and details the exact scope (Federal + bancas: PT-Rio, PTM, PTV, PTN, Corujinha). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_resultado_federal by listing what is included beyond the federal draw.

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 implies when to use it—when you want all of today's known draws across multiple lotteries—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or direct the agent to a sibling tool like get_resultado_federal for federal-only results. No exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations are entirely absent, so the description must indicate side effects, error behavior, and data source reliability. It only says "Retorna" (returns), implying a read operation, but does not disclose that it is an external lookup, what happens with an invalid slug, or any rate limits or authorization requirements. The mention of editorial curation on deunobicho.online hints at an external dependency, but not enough.

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 with no filler. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, followed by a colon that enumerates the output content and source attribution. Every phrase provides useful information.

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 it is a simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose and output structure. However, it lacks usage differentiation from search_sonhos and does not disclose behavioral caveats. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 the slug parameter is already well-documented with examples and a link to the full list. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter; it focuses on the return content. 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns dream interpretations from the jogo do bicho dream book, with specific content: meaning, animal to play, and gambling numbers. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_resultado_federal and search_sonhos by focusing on a predefined dream interpretation lookup, not results or search.

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?

Usage is implied: the agent should use this when it has a dream slug and wants the interpretation. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of search_sonhos, nor exclusions or alternative routes. The schema mentions a full list of slugs but does not provide decision context.

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

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

Não há annotations, então a descrição carrega essa responsabilidade. Ela informa que a busca retorna sonhos com slug + resumo, o que é bom, mas não detalha comportamento como limites de resultados, ordenação, o que acontece sem correspondências, ou se a busca é parcial/exata.

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?

Três frases curtas e diretas, com a ação principal na primeira sentença e exemplos práticos na segunda. Não há conteúdo redundante ou desnecessário.

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?

Para uma ferramenta simples com apenas um parâmetro obrigatório e sem output schema, a descrição cobre o essencial: o que busca, como buscar e o formato do retorno (slug + resumo). Faltam apenas detalhes menores como quantidade máxima de resultados, mas nada crítico para o uso.

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?

O schema já documenta 100% do parâmetro q, mas a descrição agrega valor ao dar exemplos concretos ('agua', 'cabelo', 'bebê') e ao indicar que são termos em português. Isso ajuda o agente a entender o formato esperado do input.

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?

A descrição usa verbo específico ('Busca') e recurso claro ('sonhos no livro dos sonhos') com o critério de busca ('por keyword'). Além disso, diferencia-se implicitamente do sibling get_sonho, que provavelmente recupera um sonho específico, enquanto este busca por termo livre.

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?

O uso é inferido pela descrição: deve ser usado para localizar sonhos por palavra-chave. Porém, não há orientação explícita sobre quando usar esta ferramenta em vez de get_sonho ou das demais alternativas, nem exclusões ou condições.

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