get_latest_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'gets' results (implying read-only) but does not disclose idempotency, side effects, error conditions, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

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, using a standard Python docstring format. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and clearly lists parameters. However, it could be slightly more succinct without the Args/Returns markers.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It explains parameters but the return value is vague ('最近几期的开奖结果'). For a tool with no output schema, more detail on result structure would improve completeness.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying allowed values for lottery_type ('double_ball' or 'super_lotto') and explaining the default for count (5), which the schema does not provide.

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 retrieves recent lottery results for specified types (double_ball, super_lotto) and count. It uses a specific verb ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('开奖结果' meaning 'results'), but does not distinguish from sibling tools like check_prize or query_lottery.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where sibling tools would be more appropriate.

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