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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so safety traits are covered outside the description. The description adds the data source (cavea.ge) and enumerates returned fields, but says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, or freshness of 'now showing' data that annotations do not cover.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return fields, the downstream workflow step, and provenance. The enumeration of return fields is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but the description stays compact and has no filler.

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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, output fields, data provenance, and the follow-up call. The only missing piece is how 'now showing' vs 'coming soon' relates to the status parameter and result limits.

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 all three parameters (limit, status, language) are already fully documented with defaults and allowed values. The description's phrase 'shows now, or coming soon' loosely maps to the status parameter but adds no syntax, default, or format information beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('movies') with clear scope: now showing or coming soon from Cavea. It differentiates itself implicitly from cinema_list_sessions by telling the agent to pass the returned code there, but it never contrasts itself with sibling cinema_search_movies, so it falls 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?

Gives a clear workflow cue: use the returned code in cinema_list_sessions, which tells the agent when this tool fits in a sequence. It provides no explicit exclusions or comparison against cinema_search_movies, so guidance is contextual rather than complete.

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