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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully enumerates the returned fields (title, version, start time), implying a read-only lookup, but says nothing about data freshness, rate limits, auth, or behavior when a cinema/date has no showtimes.

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: the purpose-and-scope statement is front-loaded, followed by a targeted pointer for obtaining the id. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, returned fields, and id provenance. Minor gaps remain: no mention of default-date behavior or empty-result handling, but nothing critical to invocation 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 both parameters are already documented, including that date defaults to today. The description only reinforces the id source (list_cinemas live field), which the schema already expresses ('影城 live 代碼'), adding no new syntactic or format detail.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('查某家電影院某天的電影場次時刻表') and states the scope (one cinema, one day), plus the returned fields (片名、版本、開演時間). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_cinemas and upcoming_showtimes_in_city.

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/route for the required parameter: use the 'live' field returned by list_cinemas. It does not state when to prefer this over the sibling upcoming_showtimes_in_city, so no exclusion guidance is offered.

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