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 without the description. The description adds no behavioral context of its own (no data freshness, no note that the record is a single entity), so it merely matches the annotation baseline.

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 front-loaded fragment with no wasted words. It is terse to the point of being a label rather than a sentence, but nothing is padded.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and an output schema, return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The missing piece is routing guidance (how to get the tt-id, when to prefer this over the search/title siblings).

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 100% and the single title_id parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example (tt0499549). The description's '(tt…)' hint duplicates rather than extends the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource ('Box Office Mojo dataset record') and the lookup key ('by title id'), which distinguishes it from the sibling search/facets tools. It stops short of saying what the record contains, but the verb+resource is clear.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. It never tells the agent to obtain the tt-id via datasets_boxofficemojo_search first, nor how it differs from boxofficemojo_title.

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