get_calendario_federal

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.