Показы концерта

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: there is no date parameter, all future showings return at once, touring events may have many venues, and the returned slotId/objectId are later used with cinema_seats(). This explains side effects and expected behavior beyond annotations.

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 mostly efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose and key outputs. It loses a point because 'Даты в запросе нет — приходит всё будущее сразу' appears twice and could be streamlined. Otherwise, the structure is clear and well-sectioned by parameter.

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?

The tool is fully self-contained for correct invocation: all parameters are described, the downstream use with cinema_seats() is identified, sibling routing is given, and the fact that the response is useful despite having no date-filter is clearly explained. An output schema exists, so return-value format is not needed in the text.

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?

Even though schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description compensates fully: it explains event_id's source, kind's allowed values ("концерт" | "театр" | "выставка"), limit semantics (0 = all, default 15), and object_id purpose (filter to one venue). Every parameter is given operational meaning beyond raw schema field names.

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?

Description clearly states a specific action: retrieving scheduled showings for a concert, theater event, or exhibition, including venue, date, slotId, and objectId. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from cinema_schedule by saying movies do not belong here, which differentiates it from likely 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 explicit usage boundaries: use for concert/theater/exhibition but NOT for cinema, with a direct referral to cinema_schedule(event_id, date). It also explains that event_id comes from search_app(query, screen="afisha"), painting a clear flow of how and when to invoke this tool.

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