Расписание сеансов

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description adds several behavioral details: city is required unless object_id is provided, city is passed by name not numeric cityId, limit semantics with default 20, and the warning that schedule data sorted by a mismatched city center can look plausible but be meaningless. It also explains that returned objectId/slotId/eventId values are useful only when passed to cinema_seats() or cinema_book().

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 long but appropriately so: it documents an 8-parameter, 3-mode endpoint with conditional requirements. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, organized into bullet-style modes, and each line either explains a parameter, a mode, or a critical behavioral constraint. No filler is needed.

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 the endpoint complexity, 0% schema coverage, and conditional parameter logic, the description is complete enough for an agent to choose the correct mode, fill the right parameters, and understand how results are used downstream. An output schema exists, so the description does not need to restate the return structure.

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 is the sole documentation for parameters. It compensates by explaining date format, limit semantics including 0, cinema substring matching, around as a time like '17:00', window_min as allowed tolerance in minutes, city-as-name semantics, and the conditional roles of object_id and event_id across all modes.

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 defines the tool as cinema showtimes for a date and expands into three explicit modes: entire cinema repertoire, one movie in one cinema, and one movie across a city. It also ties the output to objectId/slotId/eventId, making it distinct from sibling tools like cinema_search and cinema_seats.

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 explicitly states when to use each mode: object_id without event_id for a cinema's full day repertoire, event_id + object_id for a single film at a cinema, and event_id + city for a film across a city. It even gives a concrete 'what plays tomorrow in this cinema' scenario and warns against the costly alternative of scanning the city schedule.

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