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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond them: the listing is limited to currently open cinemas, and the data originates from cavea.ge, which explains freshness and coverage. It does not discuss ordering or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the return fields and the routing hint. The provenance sentence ("Data from the web site of Cavea, cavea.ge") is the weakest, but it still conveys a source an agent may care about.

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 zero-required-parameter read listing with an output schema and full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs is missing. It even names the returned fields and the downstream consumer of the codes, which is more than the structured data alone supplies.

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%, and the single "language" parameter is fully documented in the schema (values ka or en, default en). The description never mentions the parameter or how it affects the returned names, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 verb and resource ("Lists the open cinemas of Cavea") plus geographic scope (Tbilisi and Batumi), and enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from cinema_list_sessions and cinema_list_movies, which deal with sessions and films rather than the cinema roster.

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?

Gives an explicit chaining instruction: "Use the code in cinema_list_sessions," which tells the agent this is the discovery step before session lookup. There is no explicit when-not or mention of the other cinema siblings, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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