Multicines Ortega

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses timezone behavior ('hora local del cine', 'nunca UTC') and the cinema operating-day convention ('un pase de madrugada pertenece a la noche anterior'). This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action and result, then adds the critical timezone and operating-day caveats. Every clause earns its place; there is no repetition of schema content or filler.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned (full movie record, showtimes, purchase URLs), the matching semantics, and the two behavioral caveats (local time, operating day). An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% and the only parameter is 'titulo', which the schema already describes as 'Título o parte del título'. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that the title can be the original title and that partial matches are accepted, which goes beyond the schema's brief description.

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 ('Busca'), a resource ('una película'), and the matching behavior ('por su título', 'acepta el título original y coincidencias parciales'). It also clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'cartelera' and 'cines' by specifying that it returns the full movie record plus all showtimes and purchase URLs.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a movie's full details and its showtimes/purchase links by title. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling names ('cartelera', 'cines') and the description's focus on title-based lookup make the usage context clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: times are cinema-local (never UTC), days are the cinema's operating day bounded by closing time so late-night showings belong to the previous night, and it explicitly states it does NOT report remaining tickets and points to the purchase URL instead. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs.

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 what the tool returns, followed by scoping rules and then the two behavioral caveats. Dense but every sentence earns its place; slightly long, yet no filler.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and only two optional parameters – the description fully compensates by describing returned content (times, exact purchase URLs) and explicitly delimiting what it does not return (ticket availability). Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: omitting «dia» returns all scheduled days, and «cine» can be omitted to see all cinemas. It also reinforces the operating-day semantics of «dia» that the schema only labels.

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 resource and what it returns: which films are showing, at what times, and the exact purchase URL per showing. It is clearly a listings/showtime tool, though it never names or contrasts itself with the siblings buscar_pelicula or cines (the latter is only referenced in the schema), so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Explains the scoping options clearly – narrow to a specific day, and within a chain to a single cinema – and gives the default behavior when «dia» is omitted (all programmed days). It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context for use is unambiguous.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data scope (cinemas of this operator) and notes that opening hours are included 'cuando consta' (when available), which is a useful behavioral caveat. It does not mention whether the list is paginated, sorted, or if it requires any auth, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the resource and lists the key fields. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names the resource, the fields, and the caveat about opening hours. It could mention whether the list is ordered or if there are any limits, but those are minor gaps for this simple tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by explaining what the returned data contains, including the identifier's purpose ('para filtrar'). With 0 params, baseline is 4, and the description meets it.

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 resource ('cines de este operador') and lists the fields returned: nombre, identificador para filtrar, dirección, zona horaria y horario de apertura. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like cartelera or buscar_pelicula.

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 this is a reference/list tool for cinemas, useful for obtaining an identifier to filter elsewhere. It does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or mention alternatives, but the context of listing cinemas with an 'identificador para filtrar' gives a reasonable usage hint.

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