check_prize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool checks and returns match details and prize levels, which implies read-only behavior. While it does not explicitly say it is non-destructive, the verb 'check' strongly implies no side effects. It could be more explicit but is adequate for an agent.

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 concise and well-structured: one line for purpose, followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides necessary detail without redundancy. No fluff.

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?

The description covers all parameters and explains the return value (winning results with match details and prize level). It is complete for a moderately complex tool. It could be enhanced by mentioning default behavior or edge cases (e.g., what if no matches), but overall it provides sufficient context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains each parameter: lottery_type with two explicit options and their English/Chinese names, date format (YYYY-MM-DD), and numbers structure for both lottery types (red/blue ball ranges, positions). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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: checking winning status of specified lottery numbers within a date range. '检查指定号码在日期范围内的中奖情况' translates to 'Check the winning status of specified numbers within a date range'. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('lottery numbers'), and the context of sibling tools (get_latest_results, query_lottery, update_lottery) indicates this tool is distinct in that it checks specific numbers for wins.

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 context ('to check winning status') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer in different scenarios.

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