Площадки города

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds useful behavioral detail not in annotations: query is local filtering only, no text-search bank exists, pages are read fully before filtering, and city is effectively required. A full picture is missing only for limit behavior, but the added context is meaningful.

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, front-loads the core purpose, and each sentence adds a distinct fact. There is no fluff 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?

Given an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, upstream identification, downstream usage, required city, and page/filter semantics. The only missing operational detail is limit and its relationship to the pages parameter, so the description is nearly complete for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it explains kind choices, city/city_id requirement, pages as 100-item page counts, and query's local filtering mechanics. However, limit is never explained, and the Russian kind examples do not explicitly reconcile with the schema's default 'movie'.

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 names the resource ('площадки города') and the deliverable ('с их objectId'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating it is the only way to obtain a venue objectId without going through an event, which is an explicit differentiator.

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?

It says when to use the tool: to discover objectId for a venue. It then routes the agent to the downstream consumers — cinema_schedule(object_id=…), place_schedule(), and place_info() — making the invocation path clear. This is enough for an agent to know not to use this tool when objectId is already known.

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