bms_get_showtimes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of describing behavior. It clearly states that this is a retrieval operation, enumerates what data is returned, and notes default date behavior. It does not mention error conditions, pagination, or rate limits, but for a read-only 'get' operation the description is sufficiently transparent about the expected outcome.

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 well-organized with a titled overview, a list of returned data, and a structured Args block. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence earns its place. No fluff or repetition; the formatting 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 tool with 5 parameters and an output schema (though not shown here), the description is exceptionally complete. It covers all parameters, provides defaults, examples, and explicitly lists what the response will contain (formats, prices, mobile ticket flags, seat availability). An agent can call this tool correctly without needing to inspect the schema further.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It does: each parameter (movie_code, city, date, language, format) is explained with concrete examples and allowed values (e.g., 'ET00378770', 'mumbai', 'YYYYMMDD', 'tamil'/'all'). This goes well beyond the bare schema and gives the agent everything needed to construct valid calls.

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 opens with a clear verb + resource: 'Get Cinema Venues & Showtimes' and immediately enumerates the specific retrieval details (formats, price ranges, mobile ticket support, seat availability). It unambiguously distinguishes itself from siblings like bms_get_venue_details (which targets a single venue) and bms_get_movies (which lists movies) by focusing on showtimes for a given movie and city.

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 makes it obvious when to use this tool: when you need showtimes for a specific movie in a city, with optional filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the semantics are clear enough for an agent to route correctly. A brief pointer to siblings (e.g., 'for movie listings use bms_get_movies') would have made it a 5.

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