bms_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the action (search) and the input constraints; it does not disclose anything about response format, pagination, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. For a search tool, being read-only is implied but not stated. This leaves significant behavioral information uncommunicated.

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 extremely concise: a one-line title, a single descriptive sentence, and a compact Args list. It front-loads the purpose and provides parameter examples without any redundant phrasing. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clean and scannable.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained) and the description covers both parameters with examples and the operation's scope, the description is fairly complete for a search tool. It mentions 'active' listings and 'selected city,' which are key constraints. Minor gaps like pagination or sorting are not critical for a search tool, so the completeness is strong but not perfect.

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 must compensate. It does so by explaining both 'query' as a search keyword and 'city' as a city slug, each with concrete examples. It also clarifies the city is 'selected' and provides example slugs. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema titles, though it doesn't mention the default city value (mumbai).

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 states a specific verb ('Performs a cross-search') and resource ('active movie titles and live event listings'), with a clear scope (a selected city, matching a query term). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by explicitly being a cross-search, which sets it apart from bms_get_movies and bms_get_events. This is precise and unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when you want results from both movies and events), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't say 'for single-category searches, use bms_get_movies or bms_get_events,' so the agent must infer that from the cross-search wording. This is adequate but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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