lott_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool gets results, implying a read operation, but lacks details on authentication, data freshness, rate limits, or error handling. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate behavior.

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 concise sentence that quickly conveys the core function. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it is arguably too terse, sacrificing informative detail for brevity. A slightly longer description could maintain conciseness while adding valuable context.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the results contain (e.g., winning numbers, prize breakdown, draw date). It fails to do so. The tool's functionality is only partially described, leaving significant gaps about the return value and result structure.

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 input schema has 50% description coverage (game parameter described, draw_number not described). The tool description does not add any parameter information beyond the schema. It fails to explain what happens when parameters are omitted, valid values for draw_number, or how results are filtered. The description does not compensate for the schema gaps.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'Australian lottery results' from 'The Lott'. It conveys the tool's purpose effectively, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'lott_jackpots', which likely deals with jackpot amounts. However, the term 'results' versus 'jackpots' provides implicit distinction.

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. No mention of prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it. The only information is the basic purpose, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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