bms_get_movies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states that it 'retrieves clean, structured movie listings' and mentions optional filtering, but it does not disclose any non-read behaviors, potential side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format details. Since it is a read-only operation, the absence of a destructive hint is not an issue, but the description does not add any behavioral context beyond the core retrieval action.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear summary line ('Get Active Movie Listings in a City') followed by a brief explanation and a structured Args section. There is no fluff or redundancy; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage. The length is appropriate for a simple read tool.

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 relatively simple, has an output schema (so return values are covered by structured data), and the description covers the primary purpose and all parameters. It does not mention prerequisites like the city needing to come from bms_get_cities, but that is implied by the examples and the overall context. For a read-only listing tool, the description is sufficiently complete to allow an agent to call it correctly without additional clarification.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description includes an Args section that explicitly describes each parameter: city (with examples), language (with a list of values), and genre (with a list of values). This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type definitions and helps an agent understand how to use the parameters correctly. It does not provide exhaustive enumerations but gives clear examples and allowed values, which is sufficient for most cases.

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 states the tool retrieves movie listings for a selected city, with optional filtering. It uses a specific verb ('retrieves') and a specific resource ('movie listings'), and the scope ('in a selected city') distinguishes it from siblings like bms_get_movie_details (details for a specific movie) and bms_get_showtimes (showtimes). This is a clear, unambiguous purpose.

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 explains what the tool does and that it takes a city as a primary argument, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like bms_get_showtimes or bms_get_movie_details. The usage context is implied by the tool's name and description, but there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling to choose for other needs. This qualifies as implied usage.

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