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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral caveat, that the backend matches only English names, but otherwise restates the returned fields, which the output schema already enumerates. No mention of matching semantics (substring vs prefix), case handling, or empty-result behavior.

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 definition is three short sentences, with the core purpose and search key front-loaded before the return fields. The final sentence about the data source, cavea.ge, is largely redundant with the tool name and title, so there is minor waste but no clutter.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and the input schema fully documents all three parameters. What is missing for a search tool of this complexity is behavior on no matches, case sensitivity, and whether the tool differs meaningfully from cinema_list_movies, which an agent must infer.

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 both limit and language, including the partial-English-name constraint, are already documented in the schema. The description's added meaning is limited to reinforcing the English-only matching rule; it says nothing about how query substrings are matched or how limit interacts with results beyond the schema's stated bound.

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 uses a concrete verb and resource ("Finds the movies of Cavea") and adds scope detail ("now showing or coming soon, by a part of the English name"). This implicitly separates it from the broader list-oriented sibling cinema_list_movies, but it never names that sibling or any other alternative, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives a practical input rule (pass English text; Georgian names will not match), which is real usage guidance for calling the tool. However, it never states when to prefer this search over cinema_list_movies or how to proceed if a search returns nothing, so the when/when-not guidance is only implied.

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