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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, and the description adds real context beyond them: the map is re-read from the server on every call (no caching), no seat is held, and sessions already started are out of scope. It does not discuss failure modes (e.g., invalid or expired session code) or rate/availability constraints, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 core purpose and the payload contents are front-loaded, and most sentences carry information (not-started restriction, no reservation, purchase happens on cavea.ge). The trailing 'Data from the web site of Cavea, cavea.ge' partially repeats the title and resource name, a minor 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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return fields, yet it summarizes them briefly and adds the one behavioral fact the schema cannot convey — fresh server read, no reservation. Combined with the not-started precondition, this is sufficient for correct invocation, with only error/edge-case handling left implicit.

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 'session' parameter already documents its format and provenance from cinema_list_sessions, and 'language' documents the ka/en values and the en default. The description adds nothing further about either parameter, so the 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?

The description gives a concrete verb and resource ('Returns the seats of the hall of one session of Cavea') and even enumerates the payload: rows, seats, class, taken mark, special-needs mark, free-seat count, and per-class price in lari. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool (cinema_list_sessions only appears in the schema), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It states a clear applicability condition — the session must not have started — and clarifies the boundary of the tool ('It reserves no seat. A person buys the ticket on cavea.ge'), which tells the agent this is a preview/inspection call, not a booking step. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead when...' pointer to siblings, which keeps it below 5.

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