get_grupo

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.