lotto_draw

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context that results are 'public' and require no login, which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as handling of invalid round numbers or output format, which a dedicated output schema partially covers.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. It is concise and well-structured, with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and access requirement. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling lotto_results, leaving potential confusion about which tool to use. This gap in tool selection context prevents a higher score.

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 schema provides a complete description for the sole parameter round_no ('회차 번호'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional semantic detail about how round_no affects the query, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 action ('조회한다' = retrieves) and resource ('공개 추첨 결과' = public draw results), making the primary purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool lotto_results, which likely also deals with results, so it misses the full differentiator.

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 states '로그인이 필요 없다' (no login required), which implies it is for public access, but it does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like lotto_status or lotto_results. Usage is implied rather than clearly guided.

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