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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and scope profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful 'normalized' qualifier implying processed/aggregated rows, but says nothing about row shape, ordering, or how missing data is handled.

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 tight sentence with the resource type and chart scope front-loaded. No filler, though it is arguably under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but with two required, zero-coverage parameters the description leaves the agent guessing how to construct the 'week' input. For a parameterized chart endpoint this is a meaningful completeness gap.

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?

Both parameters (year, week) have 0% schema description coverage and the description does not mention them at all. Critically, it never clarifies whether 'week' is a week-of-year integer, an ordinal weekend index, or a date — a genuinely ambiguous, required input left undocumented in both schema and description.

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') and resource ('normalized distributor rows') scoped to a named chart (Box Office Mojo domestic weekend by-distributor). This clearly distinguishes it from the title-level boxofficemojo_weekend_domestic sibling, though it never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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 'by-distributor' scoping implies when to reach for this tool over the title-level weekend chart, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Usage is inferred from the tool name and description rather than stated.

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