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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – it does not mention that these are preliminary/estimated figures subject to revision, which is the one behavioral trait unique to an 'estimates' endpoint.

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?

It is a single short sentence, so it wastes no words, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing useful to front-load.

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 need not be explained, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. But for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage hosted alongside several confusable siblings, the description leaves both parameter semantics and sibling routing unresolved.

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 the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. 'week' is genuinely ambiguous (ISO week number vs. week-ending date vs. a ranking week index), and the description does nothing to resolve it.

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 is a noun phrase that restates the tool name ('Box Office Mojo domestic weekend estimates') with no verb and no operational detail. It does not distinguish this from siblings like boxofficemojo_weekend_domestic, boxofficemojo_weekend_domestic_by_distributor, or boxofficemojo_date_domestic, so an agent cannot tell which one to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite several near-identical boxofficemojo weekend/date siblings. The only context is the bare resource name, which leaves the agent to infer usage entirely.

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