Свободные места

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

This is the strongest dimension. The description explicitly says money is not moved, explains the output cap and '…ещё N' hint, describes row/sector filtering, and discloses the critical difference between the numbered 'row:seat' cinema format and the composite seatId used by other verticals. It adds substantial behavioral value beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 dense but well-structured: front-loaded purpose and side-effect-free behavior, then parameter semantics, then a short critical usage/format note. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no fluff.

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 eight-parameter read-only tool with zero schema descriptions, the description covers a lot: parameter provenance, default display limits, kind aliases, filtering behavior, and the booking handoff requirement. The only meaningful omission is event_id, which remains a required parameter without any explanation.

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?

Since the schema has zero parameter descriptions, the prose must do the work, and it does so for most parameters: slot_id, object_id, row, max_price, kind, sector_id, and limit all receive meaningful semantics. However, the required event_id parameter is not explained anywhere, and the default meanings of max_price=0 and limit=0 are only implied, leaving a notable gap.

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 identifies the tool as 'Свободные места на сеансе' (free seats for a session), combining a concrete resource with a read-oriented verb. It also positions itself within the cinema flow by referencing cinema_schedule() and cinema_book, so an agent can distinguish it from schedule and booking siblings.

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 contextual guidance: where slot_id and object_id come from, which verticals it covers, and how the selected seatId must be passed to cinema_book. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool or name direct alternatives, but the workflow context makes the intended use clear.

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