get_historical_data

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error conditions, or what format the historical data returns. For a tool that presumably accesses potentially large datasets, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise - a single Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's function with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for what it communicates, though it could benefit from additional context given the complexity of the domain and sibling tools.

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?

Given the context of multiple specialized sibling tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'historical data' includes (draw dates, winning numbers, prize amounts?), how far back data goes, whether there are access limitations, or how this tool differs from the various 'get_latest_*' tools. For a data retrieval tool in a complex lottery analysis system, more contextual information would be helpful.

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 description mentions '指定彩票类型' (specified lottery types) which aligns with the 'lottery_type' parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema. With 100% schema description coverage that clearly documents both parameters (including enum values for lottery_type and range/default for periods), the description doesn't provide meaningful extra information about parameter usage, constraints, or implications.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取指定彩票类型的历史开奖数据' (Get historical lottery draw data for specified lottery types). It specifies both the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('历史开奖数据' - historical draw data), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_latest_ssq' or 'get_latest_3d', which appear to fetch only the latest data rather than historical periods.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for different lottery types (e.g., 'get_latest_ssq', 'get_latest_3d') and analytical tools (e.g., 'analyze_numbers', 'predict_lottery'), there's no indication of when this historical data retrieval tool is preferred over those other options or what specific use cases it serves.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.