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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose useful traits: results are limited to 80 records, sorted by start time, and filtered to today's upcoming shows. It omits any note on read-only nature or pagination beyond the truncation hint.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with the key scoping (city, today, upcoming) front-loaded, followed by sort order and the row cap. The bracketed database label is mildly redundant but not wasteful.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope, temporal filter, ordering, and result cap. Return-field detail is absent but arguably unnecessary given the simplicity.

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% and the sole 'city' parameter is already documented with examples in the schema. The description confirms a city input but adds no format or constraint details beyond it, so 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 resource (movie showtimes) with clear scope: a given city, today, upcoming only, sorted by start time. An agent can distinguish it from screen__get_cinema_showtimes (cinema-scoped) via the city scope, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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 'today, upcoming' framing implies the usage context (real-time, imminent showings), but the description never states when to prefer this over screen__get_cinema_showtimes or screen__schedule_changes. Usage must be inferred.

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