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, but the description adds nothing on top — no note about data scope, coverage period, or freshness. With a one-line restatement there is no behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 short phrase with no wasted words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. It is front-loaded but carries almost no information.

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, but the description leaves the year format undocumented and gives no basis for choosing this tool over the many boxofficemojo siblings. For a parameterized data tool this is materially incomplete.

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 single 'year' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about its expected format or valid range (e.g., 4-digit year, earliest supported year). The description does not compensate 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?

The description names the resource ('Box Office Mojo domestic yearly box office') but is essentially a restatement of the tool name, adding no distinguishing detail. It does not differentiate from close siblings like boxofficemojo_year_worldwide or boxofficemojo_date_domestic. Purpose is implied rather than stated with a verb.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boxofficemojo_year_worldwide (worldwide totals) or boxofficemojo_weekend_domestic. No context, no exclusions, no prerequisites are provided.

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