search_cinemas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does it well. It discloses the minimum query length, search-as-you-type behavior, geolocation radius, fallback to configured default location, and alphabetical ordering when no location is given. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what the schema reveals.

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 compact and well-structured. The core behavior and constraints are front-loaded, followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no filler or repetition.

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 moderate-complexity search tool with an output schema present, the description covers all invocation-critical details: query requirements, limits, geolocation behavior, defaults, and ordering. Nothing essential for selecting or calling the tool appears to be 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%, but the Args block fully compensates by explaining every parameter: query is a 3+ character fragment, limit defaults to 5 with max 25, and lat/lng are optional with valid ranges. This adds real meaning that the bare schema properties lack.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search cinema names or towns', with a clear search-as-you-type behavior and a minimum character requirement. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cinemas_nearby, which imply a location-based listing rather than a text query tool.

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 practical context: it works best with geolocation within 75 miles, falls back to a default location, and returns alphabetical results without coordinates. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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