update_lottery

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that the tool performs a write operation and returns counts, but fails to specify whether data is overwritten or appended, or any potential side effects like deletion of existing data. No authentication or rate limit info is given.

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 extremely concise, using bullet-like formatting in a docstring. It front-loads the purpose and includes parameter details efficiently, with no extraneous content.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides the core function and return summary, but lacks details on failure modes, idempotency, or precise return structure. It is adequate but leaves some important gaps.

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 description adds value beyond the schema by enumerating allowed values for lottery_type ('double_ball', 'super_lotto') and specifying date format (YYYY-MM-DD) for start_date and end_date. However, it does not clarify whether end_date is inclusive or the exact behavior of the date range.

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 it updates lottery draw data to the local database, using the verb 'update' and specifying the resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools (e.g., query_lottery), though the write nature is implied.

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 over alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context for use, or any restrictions.

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