Theater info

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses concrete behavioral details: it returns the next 5 showtimes with ticket links, includes a calendar feed URL, and explains exactly what the 'detailed' mode adds (confidence level, source tier, reporting sources, verified_at timestamp). This gives the agent a precise model of what the tool will produce.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence establishes the resource and enumerates its contents, and the second precisely clarifies the mode-dependent behavior. There is no filler, redundant phrasing, or repeated schema material.

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 description is largely complete for a read-only info tool, especially because the output schema exists and the annotations cover safety. It explains the main output groups and the detailed-mode behavior. It only lacks explicit guidance about when to invoke this tool versus the related sibling tools, which slightly weakens its standalone context.

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 input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds value by explaining what 'detailed' mode actually changes: every showtime additionally carries confidence, source tier, reporting sources, and verified_at, which is not stated in the schema. This makes the parameter semantics richer.

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 identifies the resource as a single SF theater's card and enumerates its contents (address, neighorhood, website, showtimes, discounts, etc.), so an agent can tell what data it returns. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not directly distinguish itself from sibling tools like scenef_whats_playing or scenef_discounts beyond the implied focus on one theater.

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 says what the tool returns but gives no guidance about when to choose it over the listed siblings. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools such as scenef_search_showtimes for broad showtime queries, so an agent must infer the appropriate use case from the title and contents.

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