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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds the notion of 'normalized rows', which implies some data processing, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or the exact nature of normalization. With annotations carrying the main burden, this is a modest but useful addition.

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 words. It is appropriately sized for the core statement of purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (two parameters), an output schema exists, and annotations cover read-only and open-world behavior. However, the description omits any explanation of the required year and week parameters, which are critical for correct invocation. Given the low schema coverage, this gap leaves the definition only partially complete.

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 there are two required parameters (year and week). The description does not mention either parameter, nor does it explain valid ranges, formats, or what they represent. It fails to compensate for the completely undocumented parameters, leaving the agent without any parameter semantics beyond the names themselves.

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 and resource: 'Returns normalized rows from Box Office Mojo's public domestic weekend chart.' It clearly identifies the chart type (domestic weekend), but does not differentiate from close siblings like boxofficemojo_weekend_domestic_by_distributor or boxofficemojo_weekend_domestic_estimates, which also deal with the weekend domestic chart. This is a clear but not fully distinguished purpose.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions that would select this tool over its siblings. It simply states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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