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—no mention of data coverage, geographic scope details, or freshness of the yearly figures.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise—there is nothing to front-load because no meaningful content is present.

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. However, for a tool with a required parameter and a closely named sibling (year_domestic), the description is missing the scope distinction and any parameter guidance an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, so the single required 'year' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The word 'yearly' hints at a year input but gives no format guidance (e.g., integer like 2024) or valid range, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 'Box Office Mojo worldwide yearly box office' largely restates the tool name (boxofficemojo_year_worldwide) rather than stating a verb and resource. It conveys the data domain but gives no indication of what the tool actually returns or how it differs from sibling boxofficemojo_year_domestic.

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. The obvious sibling boxofficemojo_year_domestic (worldwide vs domestic yearly figures) is never referenced, so the agent must infer the distinction 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.