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.