get_draw_history

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read-only operation. The description adds that only completed draws are returned and that the limit is one to ten, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not describe ordering, pagination, or what happens for an unknown draw ID.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The scope constraint and draw_id behavior are both stated efficiently.

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 read tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers scope, limit bounds, and draw_id behavior. It leaves minor gaps around ordering and invalid-ID behavior, but these are modest given the structured metadata.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that limit reads one to ten draws and that draw_id selects a starting public draw ID, covering both parameters well, though it does not state the default behavior when draw_id is null.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reading completed Base draws, with a bounded scope of one to ten or starting from a public draw ID. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_draw_proof or get_stats.

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 phrase 'or begin at a specified public draw ID' implies how draw_id is used versus limit-only retrieval, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_draw_proof or get_stats. Usage is inferable but not fully directed.

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