Афиша за период

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds substantial behavioral context: a multi-day range really expands results by including one-off events, cinema sessions are deliberately excluded, concert/theater nearest slots are visible immediately, and query is a local name filter. This goes far beyond the annotation safety profile.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then uses short, scannable statements about kind, city, dates, and exclusions. Every sentence contributes useful information, but a few points could be merged, and the emphasis on 'Диапазон реально работает' is important but slightly verbose. Overall, it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 an 8-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the description explains required fields, date range semantics, accepted kinds, and explicitly plumbs the routing to sibling tools for excluded cases. With an existing output schema to cover return shape, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 carries the whole burden for parameters. It covers kind values ('кино' | 'концерт' | 'театр'), city/city_id requirement, date details, and query semantics. But limit and pages are not explained, and the exact accepted enum literal for kind is not confirmed against the schema default of 'movie'. Minor gaps in an otherwise strong param description.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Афиша вертикали за ПЕРИОД дат: что идёт с date_from по date_to'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming exclusions — exhibitions go to search_app(screen="afisha") or place_schedule(), and cinema sessions go to cinema_schedule(event_id, date). This makes it clear what this tool does and what it does not do.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it works for кино, концерт, театр; it does not work for выставки or киносеансы, with specific sibling tools named as alternatives. It also states that city is required and that date format is YYYY-MM-DD. An agent can select this tool without guessing.

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