Plan a movie night

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: rankings are preference-based and never pay-ranked, a wildcard pick is always included, and detailed mode surfaces confidence, source tier, and verified_at metadata. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it covers output shape, ranking policy, and mode-specific behavior. The 'concierge' metaphor adds a bit of flavor without harming clarity, and the most decision-relevant behavior is front-loaded.

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?

Despite the tool's nested preferences and hard time constraints, the description plus the fully covered schema provides enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It lacks explicit mention of defaults and hard-bound fallback behavior, but those are captured in the schema descriptions.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters and nested preference fields thoroughly. The description adds a helpful high-level framing ('window and taste profile') but does not need to repeat or extend the detailed parameter semantics.

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 identifies a specific verb ('plans') and a concrete resource (a movie night), then enumerates the exact output: 2-4 complete plans with film, showtime, theater, rationale, ticket and calendar links, plus a wildcard. This clearly differentiates it from sibling search/list tools like scenef_search_showtimes or scenef_whats_playing.

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 states the required inputs ('a window and a taste profile') and the expected result, making the primary use case obvious. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or mention exclusions, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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