cinemas_nearby

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the default-location fallback via environment variables, the 10-day showtime filter, and the inclusion of addresses and distances. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only listing tool these are not critical omissions.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then behavioral nuances, then a compact Args section. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, an output schema is present, and all parameters and key behaviors are described, the definition is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. No critical details such as default values, coordinate ranges, or result filtering are missing.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: limit's default and maximum, lat's range (-90..90), lng's range (-180..180), and the optional/null behavior of lat/lng with fallback to configured defaults. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 operation: list cinemas nearest to a location with addresses and distances. It is specific enough to distinguish from general cinema search tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 provides clear context: call it with lat/lng to get nearby cinemas, or omit them to use the configured default location. It also states the 10-day showtime filter, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over search_cinemas or closest_showing.

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