Get cinema showtimes

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: start times are local to the cinema, output is truncated by max_venues and max_showtimes_per_venue with totals (showtimes_total, venues_total) giving the full counts, the no-country reply has an empty results list, and many titles have no showtimes. These are real operational traits an agent needs and none are derivable from annotations.

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?

Effectively one dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the core purpose and the country/no-country fork before drilling into return fields and pagination limits. Every sentence carries information, though the middle payload enumeration is long and the truncation caveat is buried near the end rather than surfaced early.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it documents the shape of both the country-summary reply and the cinema/showtime reply, including per-showtime fields (local start time, date, formats, auditorium, price, booking_url) and the totals fields for detecting truncation. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: what omitting country actually produces ('results is then empty'), that country must be a two-letter code, and that the max_* limits truncate rather than filter the underlying totals. The per-parameter enumeration largely repeats the schema, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find where and when a movie or TV title is showing in cinemas'), scoped by title type and starting from today. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_movie or search_titles, which return metadata rather than venue/showtime data.

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?

Explicitly describes the two-step call pattern: omit country to get a country summary, then re-call with a two-letter code to get cinemas, including what the reply looks like in each case. It also warns that many titles have no showtimes, which sets expectations. It does not name alternatives (e.g., when to prefer search_titles first), leaving that to the schema.

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