Get lottery results and number frequency

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes further by disclosing the underlying Apify Actor, per-row cost (~$0.003), and a $0.5 per-call spend cap — operationally important context an agent can't get from the annotations. It does not describe pagination or failure behavior, but the cost model is the key disclosure here.

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?

Front-loaded with the main capability, but the single dense sentence enumerating thirteen games is redundant with the schema enum and makes the definition longer than needed. The cost information is valuable; the game roll-call is not.

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 read-only, open-world data-fetch tool with a full output schema, the description supplies what's missing from structured fields: coverage of games, history depth, mode semantics, and the spend cap. Only minor gaps (pagination/row ordering) remain.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented, including the draws/stats enum and date formats. The description adds a little meaning (frequency stats include what pure chance would produce, history back to 1980) but largely restates the game list already captured by the enum; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (winning numbers / number frequency) and names the concrete games covered, plus the history window back to 1980. The long enumeration of games partly duplicates the enum in the schema, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Clearly describes the two modes an agent would choose between — per-draw winning numbers versus hot/cold frequency stats over a date range — and notes the frequency mode includes a pure-chance baseline. No explicit exclusions are stated, but sibling tools are unrelated so there is no real alternative to route against.

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