movie_showtimes

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 sorting by distance, that a location is required, that date defaults to today, and that limit is capped at 25. It does not discuss error behavior when no location is available or timezone semantics, but the key call-affecting behaviors are disclosed.

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 most important information is front-loaded in the first line. The location requirement is stated immediately after, and the Args section is compact and information-dense. Every line adds value; there is no repetition of schema trivia 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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the required location nuance, defaults, ranges, and limits. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not needed. Minor gaps include not explicitly routing between sibling tools and not stating what happens when lat/lng are omitted and env defaults are also unset, but the core invocation is fully specified.

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 must compensate, and it does. Every parameter gets meaningful semantics: film_id is a MovieGlu numeric id, date is YYYY-MM-DD with a default, limit has default and max, and lat/lng have ranges and optionality plus the env-var fallback. This is exactly the detail an agent needs beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Showtimes for one film at the cinemas nearest a location, sorted by distance.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cinema_showtimes (likely cinema-centric) and closest_showing (likely a single nearest result). The film-centric, location-based scope is immediately unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: you need showtimes for one film near a location. It also explains the two ways to satisfy the location requirement: pass lat/lng or rely on MOVIEGLU_LAT/MOVIEGLU_LNG defaults. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives such as cinema_showtimes for cinema-centric queries, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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