get_historia

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.