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

Annotations already convey readOnly and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: the exact card contents, the 'next 5 showtimes with ticket links', and exactly what 'detailed' mode adds (confidence level, source tier, reporting sources, verified_at timestamp). It does not disclose possible failure modes or what happens if a theater is not found, but it offers useful behavioral specificity beyond the annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded summary that uses no filler words. It leads with the core object ('one SF theater's card'), enumerates the natural card elements, and adds a single sentence for the mode variation. Every sentence adds distinctive content.

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 informational tool with only two parameters, a fully described schema, and an output schema present, the description gives enough context to make a correct call: it tells what data will appear, what 'detailed' mode changes, and what the output includes. No required fields or behaviors appear missing from the description alone.

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 schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the basis is strong. The description adds semantics by elaborating specifically on the 'detailed' response_format: each showtime carries confidence level, source tier, reporting sources, and verified_at timestamp. This gives an agent more conceptual meaning about the response_format enum than the schema's generic 'extra metadata'.

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 clearly states the tool returns one SF theater's info card and enumerates its contents (address, neighborhood, website, ticketing note, discounts, amenities, showtimes, calendar feed). The title itself is vague, but the description makes the resource and scope clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as scenef_search_showtimes, which also involve 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 implies the tool is for getting a single theater's aggregated details, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over scenef_search_showtimes, scenef_whatds_playing, or scenef_discounts. It also mentions concise vs. detailed mode, giving partial operational guidance. No clear 'use this instead of X' or exclusion criteria are provided.

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