Афиша площадки

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful scoping behavior beyond that: the result set excludes cinema, and the required identifier is sourced from afisha_places() or search_app(). It does not describe pagination behavior or response details, but the presence of an output schema and defaults softens that gap.

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 and front-loaded: it states the domain, flags the sharp exclusion of cinema, and gives the source of the required parameter. Every sentence earns its place, and the newline separation between the canvas scope and the cinema alternative makes it easy for an agent to scan.

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 a read-only schedule lookup, the message gives enough to invoke it correctly: content scope, negative case, and how to obtain object_id. The optional pagination fields are not explained, but their names, defaults, and the output schema mitigate ambiguity. It is nearly complete for this relatively simple tool.

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 carries real parameter-semantics responsibility. It compensates for the only required parameter by stating object_id comes from afisha_places() or search_app(), which is the key call-blocking detail. The optional page/count/limit params are left to their self-explanatory names and defaults; adding one sentence about them would make it more complete.

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 declares the resource explicitly: 'Что идёт на площадке: концерты, спектакли, выставки.' It names a specific verb intent (retrieve the venue's schedule) and the resource (the place). It also distinguishes itself from the cinema_schedule sibling by stating 'КИНО здесь НЕТ' and routing cinema queries elsewhere.

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 direct when-to-use guidance: use this for venue events such as concerts, theater, and exhibitions, and explicitly says to use cinema_schedule instead for cinema. It also tells the agent where the required object_id comes from: afisha_places() or search_app(). This is actionable selection guidance.

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