get_seat_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and 'Displays' suggests a read-only operation, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state safety guarantees, authentication needs, or failure behavior, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, tightly written sentence with a clear verb and object. It avoids filler and places the key scope ('specific showtime') up front.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the input, resource, and displayed data. It loses a point because it does not guide usage relative to sibling tools, though the output schema covers return details.

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 input schema fully documents showtime_id with an example ('st001'), and the description adds no meaning beyond referencing 'a specific showtime.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Displays') and resource ('available and reserved seats for a specific showtime'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_showtimes (which lists showtimes) and book_seats (which modifies seat availability).

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 the tool is for viewing seat availability for a chosen showtime, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. It provides enough context for basic selection but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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