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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds some context by specifying 'normalized' rows and a 'public ... domestic release-schedule' source, but omits permissions, rate limits, date validation, or error behavior. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter lookup tool and gets straight to the point.

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 tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description lacks date format guidance and any usage routing, leaving the agent with minor but real gaps given the 0% schema coverage for the date parameter.

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% for the single required date parameter. The description clarifies that the date is a domestic release-schedule date, which slightly compensates, but provides no format or constraints. Minimum viable, but not fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 ('Returns'), resource ('normalized release rows'), and scope ('one public Box Office Mojo domestic release-schedule date'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like boxofficemojo_calendar or boxofficemojo_date_domestic, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The description only implies usage by stating what it returns for a single date; an agent gets no help choosing between this and related sibling tools.

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