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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the call is read-only, what happens for an invalid or expired film URL, whether results are localized, or whether any rate limiting applies. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the operational behavior of the call remains undisclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the parameter hint immediately after; nothing is redundant. The long example path is slightly bulky but earns its place by demonstrating the expected format.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the core need (what it returns and how to form the argument). It is still thin on workflow context within the cineverse tool family and on error behavior, which an agent would want before chaining it with cineverse_get_showtimes.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only declares film_url as a bare string, so the description is doing real work: it states that both a full film URL and a site path are acceptable and supplies a concrete example path with the site's slug convention. That meaningfully constrains how the agent should construct the argument beyond what the schema provides.

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?

"Detail for one film" names the resource (a single film) and implicitly contrasts with the list_* siblings, which all return collections. However it uses a noun phrase rather than a specific verb (retrieve/fetch) and never explicitly says how it differs from the listing tools, so an agent infers the distinction rather than reads it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this after cineverse_list_now_showing or before cineverse_get_showtimes, and no prerequisites or failure conditions are mentioned. The only usage-like content is the parameter example, which is invocation syntax, not selection guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behavioral facts: results are limited to today's schedule, and each entry includes format and a booking link. It says nothing about failure modes for an unknown slug, timezone handling, or whether future dates are supported.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the payload summary ('per film, session times + format + booking link') before the parameter hint. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema that documents the return shape, the description covers scope, return contents, and parameter sourcing. Remaining gaps — invalid-slug behavior and date scope beyond 'today' — are minor for a tool this simple.

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% and the single parameter has no description, so the description must compensate — and it does, giving concrete slug samples ('14-burda', 'akasya') and naming the tool that produces valid values. That is meaningful semantics beyond the bare string type, though the exact format rule (numeric id + name) is only implied by example.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('get showtimes') plus an explicit scope ('at one cinema', 'Today's'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list tools that browse films or cinemas rather than query a venue's schedule. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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 parenthetical '(from list_cinemas)' routes the agent to the sibling that supplies the required slug, which is the key prerequisite for calling this tool. It does not explicitly state when to prefer it over cineverse_list_now_showing, but the 'at one cinema' scope makes the distinction clear enough.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the response shape (city, address, phone) and a concrete result cardinality (77 cinemas as of a stated date), which usefully implies a full, unpaginated read. It says nothing about read-only nature, rate limits, authentication, or whether the count is fixed or evolving.

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?

Two short sentences with the payload contents stated first and the parameter detail second. Nothing is redundant and there is no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope plus the single parameter. The only real gap is filter matching semantics, which matters for a name-based lookup 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 coverage is 0% and the schema only declares a defaulted string, so the description is the sole source of meaning. It correctly labels city as an optional filter and provides concrete example values, though it does not specify matching behavior (exact vs. substring) or handling of Turkish characters and case.

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 concrete resource (all Paribu Cineverse cinemas) and lists what each record carries (city, address, phone), which lets an agent distinguish it from the movie-oriented siblings such as cineverse_list_now_showing. It never uses an explicit verb like "list" or names a sibling, so differentiation comes from the noun alone rather than from stated contrast.

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?

It makes clear the tool returns the full cinema directory and that the city argument is an optional narrowing filter, with sample values supplied. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this over the movie/showtime siblings or what happens if the city name does not match.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only list and usefully discloses a snapshot date and count, but it does not explicitly state read-only status, permissions, pagination behavior, or whether the list changes between calls.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted phrasing. The parenthetical snapshot count and field list are compact and immediately useful.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description provides enough context: what is listed, the scope, a snapshot date, and a count. It could explicitly say that there are no filtering arguments, but the schema already establishes that and the remaining gap is minor.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter caveats and includes no misleading parameter information.

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 resource and scope: films coming soon to Paribu Cineverse. The phrase 'coming soon' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling cineverse_list_now_showing without needing to inspect either schema.

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 temporal scope implies when to use this tool, but the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions. An agent can infer that it should use this for future releases rather than now-showing films, but the routing guidance is only implicit.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the result shape (title, genre, release date, directors, cast, runtime, poster, film URL) and pins a snapshot ('33 on 2026-11-07'), but it never says whether results are cached or live, why that date is fixed, or whether the list is paginated or complete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence plus a parenthetical field list — every element is informative and nothing is padded. The embedded date ('2026-11-07') reads oddly without context and slightly muddies an otherwise crisp statement.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the definition is essentially sufficient: scope, snapshot count, and returned fields are all covered. The only real gap is routing guidance relative to the four sibling tools, which the description never addresses.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add; the schema baseline of 4 applies. The enumerated return fields are a bonus rather than a substitute for missing parameter documentation.

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 names a specific verb+resource pair ('Films now showing at Paribu Cineverse') and enumerates exactly what each film record contains, so its scope is unambiguous. The 'now showing' phrasing implicitly separates it from cineverse_list_coming_soon, but that sibling is never named, so differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for currently-screening films and that cineverse_get_movie handles single-title lookups. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of the coming-soon or showtimes siblings, and no note on whether the tool needs to be called before get_showtimes.

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