Read Seat Availability

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

The description reinforces the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by confirming no ticketing or checkout involvement, adding context that the tool is a safe, non-destructive read operation. No contradictions with 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?

Two concise sentences, no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the core action and result, the second clarifies safety. Perfectly front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with only one required parameter. The description states what it returns (seat counts and coordinates), compensating for the lack of an output schema. Combined with annotations, it feels sufficient for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds minor context by noting the referer is 'from captured traffic' and that showtimeHashCode comes 'from a showtime result', but these are not critical for understanding.

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 clearly states the verb 'Read', the resource 'Fandango seat map', and the input 'showtimeHashCode', and specifies the output 'normalized open/taken seat counts and coordinates'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'fandango_render_seat_map' by focusing on data retrieval rather than rendering.

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 usage for checking seat availability without side effects ('never enters ticketing or checkout'), but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like 'fandango_render_seat_map' or when not to use. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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