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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals sorting order, configurable horizon, and mode-specific output details such as confidence level, source tier, reporting sources, and verified_at timestamp. It could go further by describing the concise mode's exact contents, but overall the behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the listing and sort, the second points out the horizon parameter, and the third explains the difference between output modes. It is compact, front-loaded, and lacks fluff.

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 query tool with two parameters, the description is nearly complete. It covers what is returned, sorting, horizon configurability, and the detailed output. It does not explicitly describe the concise output shape or mention pagination, but these are not critical for choosing and cold-calling this tool successfully given the supporting schemas.

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 input schema already describes both parameters and their defaults. The description adds value by detailing what 'detailed' response_format produces—confidence level, source tier, reporting sources, and verified_at timestamp—which goes beyond the schema's vague 'other metadata.' This enrichment justifies a score slightly above the baseline for fully annotated parameters.

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 defines exactly what the tool returns: films whose first SF screening is more than 48 hours out, sorted by first night. This directly differentiates it from siblings like scenef_now or scenef_whats_playing, which target current showings, and from search_showtimes, which searches across showtimes.

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 gives a clear trigger condition: use this when you need to see on-sale films opening more than 48 hours in the future, especially for advance booking. It implies the contrast with currently playing films through the 48-hour cutoff, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it.

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