get_resultado_hoje

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.