lotto_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's '조회한다' (inquire) is consistent. The description adds specific status fields being checked, but does not go beyond that. It doesn't describe return format or other behaviors, but with annotations covering safety and an output schema, this is adequate.

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, clear sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and well-structured for the simple scope of the tool.

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?

With no parameters, readonly annotations, and an output schema present, the description is complete for this low-complexity tool. It clearly states what the tool returns information about, and there is no missing context for the agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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 no parameter semantics are needed. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately adds no parameter information since there is none to add.

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 function: it 'queries' deposit balance, purchase limit, and validity of healthy purchase pledge. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like lotto_results, lotto_draw, and lotto_buy_precheck, which serve different purposes.

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 usage when one needs to check these status items, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like lotto_buy_precheck. No exclusions or alternative references are given, so the guidance is only implied.

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