Поиск фильма

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

The annotations cover read-only and idempotent status, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: limit defaults to 20 but limit=0 shows the full poster, pages scans by slices of 30, default page cap, city default pitfalls, and eventId city-independence. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 efficiently organized by parameter and includes essential caveats without fluff. The historical note about the old 8-page cap is slightly extra but still adds context to the default.

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 five parameters with no schema-level descriptions and an output schema present, the description covers all operational nuances needed to invoke the tool: default city, city_id resolution, pagination and page scaling, eventId purpose, and warn-header hints. Nothing essential is 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%, so the description must carry the load. It does: query, city, city_id, pages, and limit are all explained with practical details — mandatory status, default behaviors, fallback logic, and what values mean.

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 the specific purpose — find a movie in theatrical distribution and its eventId — and immediately links it to the sibling tool cinema_schedule, which makes call routing clear. It is not a tautology and distinguishes the tool from related cinema tools.

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 gives strong usage guidance: empty query means the whole city poster, city is mandatory, city_id is the fallback, and pages must be raised if a header says unchecked results remain. It clearly explains why to use the tool, although it does not explicitly contrast it with every alternative cinema tool.

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