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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the result (title, version, start time), but says nothing about read-only nature, empty-result behavior when a cinema has no shows that day, or any rate/permission constraints.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the purpose and the output fields come first, the id-sourcing instruction second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 simple two-parameter read lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core need and compensates for the missing output schema by listing the returned fields. It stops short of describing empty-result or error behavior, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 100%: both id (live code, with examples) and date (YYYY-MM-DD, defaults to today) are already documented. The description's only added detail is the cross-tool sourcing of id, which is largely redundant with the schema's own '影城 live 代碼' wording, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 in Chinese: query a given cinema's showtime schedule for a given day, and even enumerates the returned fields (片名、版本、開演時間). The mention of the cinema id distinguishes it from siblings like list_titles or upcoming_showtimes_in_city, which operate at a different 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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite and routing hint — the id must come from the live field returned by list_cinemas — which an agent must know before calling. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over neighboring tools such as upcoming_showtimes_in_city or schedule_changes, so no exclusions are stated.

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