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

Annotations already cover readOnly, non-destructive, and openWorld=false, so the description's extra value is real: it discloses that access is public/no-auth and issues a prompt-injection warning that cinema names and websites are untrusted data. That trust-boundary warning is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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, zero filler, with the search scope front-loaded and the safety caveat trailing. Nothing redundant and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is fairly covered, and the non-destructive public-read profile is stated. However, for a lookup tool the key missing piece is how the user's query is interpreted and whether results include unsupported/requested cinemas separately — that gap keeps it at minimum-viable.

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?

The single parameter `query` has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. It never says what the query matches (cinema name, city, website?) or how matching works — substring, fuzzy, exact — leaving the agent to guess at input format.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Search supported cinemas and missing-theater requests' tells an agent it retrieves both cinema records and pending theater requests. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling request_theater (find vs. submit), though it never names that sibling or states the distinction 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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'Search' — an agent can infer this is the lookup path for cinemas, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it, no mention of when to prefer request_theater instead, and no note on behavior with an empty query.

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