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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burdenates. 'Retorna' signals a read-only retrieval with no apparent side effects, and the description adds concrete behavioral detail: the source website and the included link and poster fields. It does not discuss output format or failure behavior, but for a zero-parameter fetch these are secondary concerns.

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 description is a single sentence that places the action and result first, then the source, then the output elements. Every phrase contributes meaning and there is no filler or repetition.

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-argument tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states what is returned, where the data comes from, and what each result includes. An agent has what it needs to decide whether to call the tool and to interpret the result.

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 input schema has no properties and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4. The description reinforces that the tool is an unparameterized weekly listing, which is sufficient.

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 specific verb ('Retorna') and a concrete resource ('les pel·lícules de la setmana a surtdecasa.cat'), and it also states what each result contains: an enllaç and a cartell. This clearly differentiates it from generic siblings like cercar_agenda, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

The description implies this is the tool for weekly cinema listings from surtdecasa.cat, but it does not state when to use it instead of alternatives or provide any exclusions. An agent has to infer the use case from the domain rather than from explicit routing guidance.

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