get_palpite_do_dia

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.