CarteleraCines.es

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns possible matches for identification purposes, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose pagination, error handling, or the format of returned matches.

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 short and to the point. It front-loads the purpose with a clear verb and resource, provides concrete examples, and uses no unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of siblings, the description covers the basic purpose and usage. However, without an output schema, it would benefit from specifying what fields are returned (e.g., movie title, ID). The phrase 'posibles coincidencias' is vague.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The main description does not provide additional details beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches for movies by title with typo tolerance and fuzzy matching. It provides specific examples that illustrate the intended use case, distinguishing it from siblings like 'find_movie_showtimes' or 'get_movie_details'.

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 explicitly says 'Úsala cuando el usuario no escriba correctamente el nombre de la película o haya ambigüedad', giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the examples and context imply its role in a larger workflow.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it returns the URL for buying tickets, and allows filtering by city, cinema, date range, version, and time slot. No contradictions. Could mention pagination or response format, but overall good.

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 well-structured with bullet-like examples. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Could be slightly more concise by removing redundancy with schema, but the examples are helpful. Slightly verbose but acceptable.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains usage but lacks details on the return format beyond mentioning ticket URLs. It does not explain the structure of the response, pagination, or error handling. With many sibling tools, the description helps differentiate usage, but could be more complete for a tool that is central to queries.

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 baseline 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema for each parameter; it mostly repeats the options (optional, formats). However, the usage examples in the description help clarify how parameters are used together (e.g., combining city and movie). The parameter descriptions in the schema are already clear.

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 it searches for movie showtimes in cinemas. It uses specific verbs ('Busca') and resource ('en qué cines y horarios se proyecta una película'). Examples illustrate usage, and it distinguishes from siblings like find_movie (which likely finds movie general info) and get_cartelera_cine (cinema schedule).

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 explicitly states when to use: when the user wants to know where/when a specific movie is playing. It provides example queries. While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives, the context signals show many siblings, and the description implies it is the primary tool for movie availability. Could be improved by mentioning when not to use (e.g., if user asks for all showtimes at a cinema without a movie).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that results are ordered by distance in km, and explains behavior with coordinates vs. locality. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose. Every sentence is informative with no wasted words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description mentions the return (cines ordenados por distancia). It covers input constraints well, though it doesn't mention error handling or no-results case.

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 100%. The description adds clarifying mutual exclusivity of lat+lng and localidad, defaults for limit and radio_km, and natural language context for parameter usage.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Busca cines cercanos a un punto', and provides natural language queries like 'qué cines tengo cerca'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_cartelera_cine and get_cartelera_localidad by focusing on geo-proximity.

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 explicit instructions on when to use lat/lng versus localidad, and mentions default radius. It lacks explicit exclusions for alternatives, but the context implies the use case (finding nearby cinemas vs. getting cartelera for a specific locality).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by explaining error tolerance, filtering by type, and prioritization of people with movies in cartel, going beyond annotation coverage.

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 concise with only a few sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes examples and usage tips. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, and some behavioral aspects (fuzzy search, filtering). However, it lacks description of the output format (e.g., list of persons, IDs) and does not mention pagination or ordering beyond prioritization, leaving some gaps for a search tool.

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 75%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for 'tipo' and 'solo_en_cartel' (prioritization) but does not fully compensate for the missing schema description of 'solo_en_cartel'.

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 searches for people (actors/directors) by name with error tolerance. Examples like 'almodovar' and 'scorcesse' illustrate usage, and it implicitly distinguishes from movie-focused siblings like find_movie.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when the user misspells a name or there is ambiguity. Also suggests using it before querying the latest movie or filmography, providing clear context for its application.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds context about fetching 'real' showtimes with date range constraints (max 14-day range in parameter schema). No contradictions, but doesn't detail authentication or rate limits.

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 concise with two well-structured paragraphs. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clear usage examples and a summary of filters. Every sentence contributes meaning, no redundant 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?

While lacking an output schema, the description explains it returns 'todas las películas y sesiones disponibles,' which is sufficient for a typical cinema showtime tool. Parameter documentation covers inputs well. Minor gap: no explicit mention of ordering or pagination, but the tool is simple and domain-common.

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 73%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds value by listing the supported filter categories (niños, duración, puntuación, estrenos, géneros, versión, franja horaria) and referring to get_cartelera_localidad for identical filters, helping an agent understand available options.

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 retrieves ('Obtiene') the real showtimes of a specific cinema between two dates. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_cartelera_localidad' by focusing on a single cinema rather than a locality, and provides specific user query examples.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when the user mentions a specific cinema or wants to know what movies are playing there. It also implicitly excludes locality-based queries by referencing get_cartelera_localidad as the alternative for that case.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context: it returns 'cartelera real', emphasizes the date range, and lists possible filters. No contradictions with annotations. It does not detail rate limits or auth, but annotations suffice.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then examples, then filtering options. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. Could be more structured (e.g., bullet lists) but is clear and well-organized.

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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, examples, and filtering options adequately. It does not explain the return format or error handling, but for a query tool with good annotations, the description is fairly complete and actionable for an agent.

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 73%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description lists available filters like 'con_ninos', 'duracion_max', etc., but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema. This matches the baseline of 3 for a tool with high schema coverage.

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 states 'Obtiene la cartelera real de una ciudad entre dos fechas', a specific verb and resource. It provides concrete examples (e.g., 'qué ponen hoy en Córdoba') and lists filtering options, making it easy for an agent to understand exactly what this tool retrieves. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_cartelera_cine' (per-cinema) and 'find_movie_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 explicitly says 'Úsala cuando el usuario quiera saber qué películas están disponibles en una localidad' and provides multiple query examples. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, but the context of sibling tools is available, and the examples provide strong usage guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds context about the person type (actor/director) and optional filters, but does not disclose behavior like what happens if the person is not found or if multiple results exist.

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 concise and well-structured: a single clear sentence defining the tool, followed by example queries and optional filters. No wasted words, and the bullet-like examples aid readability.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and reasonable complexity, the description covers the core purpose, example queries, and optional filters. It does not explain the return format or error handling, but it is sufficient for the agent to understand the tool's function.

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 50%. The description explains the 'tipo' parameter (use 'director' only when searching for direction) and the required 'persona'. However, 'localidad' and 'solo_en_cartel' are only vaguely mentioned in the usage line, lacking detailed format or constraints beyond the schema.

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 obtains the latest movie associated with a person (actor or director), with concrete examples like 'la última de Stallone'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a single latest movie rather than a list.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool (when user asks for the latest movie of someone) and gives examples. It also mentions optional filters (city, currently in theaters). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare to siblings like get_person_movies_in_cartelera.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's addition of listing returned fields provides context but is not critical. No behavioral quirks are disclosed beyond what annotations convey.

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 efficient, uses bullet-style examples for readability, and is front-loaded with the primary purpose. Slightly verbose in listing all fields, but overall concise.

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?

Given the simple tool (1 param, no output schema, clear annotations), the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns and when to use it, leaving no major 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is well-described. The description adds no further details or examples for the parameter, so it carries its baseline value without extra benefit.

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 provides a complete movie card with specific fields (synopsis, cast, direction, genres, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives for showtimes and general listings.

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 includes concrete usage examples (e.g., 'de qué va Oppenheimer', 'quién sale en esa película') and explicitly states when not to use it, naming the appropriate sibling tools (find_movie_showtimes, get_cartelera_localidad).

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

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

The description details behavioral traits beyond annotations: it filters to real cartelera with future sessions, returns all relevant movies, and is non-destructive. Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent with the description.

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 well-structured with a clear statement of behavior followed by usage examples and sibling differentiation. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return type (list of movies in cartelera) and context. It covers the tool's purpose, usage, and relationship to siblings, making it complete for an agent.

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 67%. The description does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema for the parameters. It mentions default for 'tipo' and requirement for 'persona', but does not elaborate on 'localidad' (which lacks schema description). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema covers most.

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 all movies of a person currently in theaters with future sessions, not just the latest. It uses specific verbs and resources, and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool get_latest_movie_by_person.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios with examples, and contrasts with get_latest_movie_by_person, telling the agent when to use this tool vs the alternative. It says 'Úsala cuando...' and explains differences.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it uses 'real cartelera' but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with examples and filter categories, though slightly verbose. It front-loads the main purpose and uses clear Spanish.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not specify the return format. While the tool's purpose is clear, this gap reduces completeness for an AI agent.

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 67%, so baseline 3. Description groups filters (e.g., 'películas para niños' maps to con_ninos) but adds little new detail beyond the schema.

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 it recommends movies based on real showtimes in a city and dates, with specific example queries that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_cartelera_localidad or find_movie_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 provides explicit usage context with example user queries (e.g., 'qué me recomiendas ver este finde') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds important behavioral context: if streaming data is missing, the tool should explicitly say so rather than inventing platforms. This is beyond what annotations provide.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured: starts with core action, gives examples, then addresses edge case. It could be slightly tighter but is effective.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use, and how to handle missing data. No 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 coverage is 100% with the parameter 'pelicula' having a clear description. The description reiterates that it is required and gives examples, adding minimal semantic enrichment beyond the schema.

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's purpose: indicating streaming platforms where a movie is available. It uses specific verbs and resource (Indica en qué plataformas de streaming). The examples further clarify the scope, and it distinguishes from siblings like find_movie which likely return general movie info.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool with example queries (e.g., 'dónde puedo ver Oppenheimer en streaming'). It also advises what to do if no data is available, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings.

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