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 does usefully disclose the record contents (first public date, release date, platform, status), but says nothing about read-only nature, result volume, pagination, or sort order. Partial disclosure, hence a middle score.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence beginning with the domain tag [電影院時刻表與上映日資料庫], then scope, then contents, then filters. No padding, though it is one long compound clause rather than a scannable structure.

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 six-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema list tool the description covers domain, contents and most filters, but omits the 'upcoming' flag, date format expectations and any note on result size or ordering. Adequate as a minimum, with visible gaps.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It names the filter dimensions type, platform, status and date, which map to type/platform/status/from+to, but never mentions the 'upcoming' boolean or expected date string format. Roughly five of six parameters are implied, none are defined precisely.

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 clear verb (列出/list) plus resource scope: 2026–2027 films, series, anime and theatrical releases from a cinema-schedule/release-date database, and names the returned fields. It thereby separates itself from single-item siblings like screen__get_title and screen__lookup_any_title, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from screen__release_calendar or screen__list_cinemas.

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 says which filters are available (type, platform, status, date) but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as release_calendar or lookup_any_title. The agent must infer the usage scenario entirely from the purpose statement.

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