movies_coming_soon

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists films ordered by release date and includes release dates, ratings, and synopses, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention any potential errors, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences covering the purpose, content included, and parameter specification. The most important information (what and ordering) is front-loaded, and the parameter section is clearly separated. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description doesn't need to detail return types. It covers the operation, ordering, included fields (release dates, ratings, synopses), and the limit parameter with default and max. Minor gaps like handling empty results or pagination are not critical for a single-list tool with a max of 15 items, so it is nearly complete for its complexity.

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 schema only defines 'limit' as an integer with a default, but the description provides full semantic meaning: 'How many films to return (default 10, max 15)'. This directly compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, making the parameter's purpose and constraints crystal clear. The agent knows exactly what to pass and its bounds.

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 'List' and the resource 'films coming soon to cinemas', and specifies ordering by release date. This distinctly differentiates it from siblings like 'movies_now_showing' (currently playing) and 'search_movies' (search across all films), so an agent can select it correctly without ambiguity.

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 makes it clear that this tool returns upcoming films, which implies its use case, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide 'when not to use' guidance. There is no reference to sibling tools like 'movies_now_showing' or 'search_movies', so the agent must infer when to prefer this tool over others. The purpose is clear enough to guess, but explicit routing would be better.

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