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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions source attribution for changes, which is useful. However, it doesn't specify whether results are filtered by date, whether it's a static list, pagination behavior, or any limitations. Given no timeliness or scope constraints, the transparency is minimal but not absent.

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 brief, front-loaded with the database context, and every clause adds information. No redundant sentences.

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 no-param, potentially simple lookup tool, the description gives a basic idea but lacks details that would help an agent decide when to invoke it, like whether it returns historical or upcoming changes, or the time window covered. Without annotations or output schema, more context could be provided about the tool's operation.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema overlay is irrelevant. The description doesn't need to document parameters and its omission is expected. The content of the data is described at the resource level, which is sufficient.

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 the resource clearly (film schedule changes), what kinds of changes are captured (delays, early releases, distributor changes), and notes each change includes a source. It's specific to this tool but doesn't differentiate from siblings like screen__release_calendar or games__delay_history by explaining the uniqueness of its schedule-change scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus screen__get_cinema_showtimes, screen__release_calendar, or games__delay_history. The description merely describes content without any usage conditions or dependencies.

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