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 the dataset's scope but says nothing about pagination caps, sort defaults, or the open-world nature of the search beyond the annotation.

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 sentence with no wasted words; the core purpose and dataset scope are stated immediately. It is appropriately sized for the definition.

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 and parameter coverage is complete, so the description needn't explain return values or field formats. For a zero-required-param search tool, the description supplies enough for an agent to know what corpus is being searched, though it omits any note about the broader boxofficemojo sibling set.

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%, so all 19 parameters (including sort allowed values, page/page_size limits, gross bands, and share ranges) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (Search) and resource (Box Office Mojo dataset of theatrical box-office titles), and the parenthetical enumerates the searchable dimensions (lifetime/yearly grosses, release groups, markets). It does not explicitly name or contrast with its close siblings datasets_boxofficemojo_item and datasets_boxofficemojo_facets, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as datasets_boxofficemojo_item (single-title fetch) or the boxofficemojo_* family. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'Search'.

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