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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds a genuinely useful behavior note: empty upstream daily pages yield a typed not-found error rather than empty success. That error semantics detail is not derivable from the annotations or schema, though no other behavioral traits (rate limits, auth) are mentioned.

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?

Reasonably short and the purpose is front-loaded, but the inline 'date: ...' fragment duplicates the schema field description, and the stray capitalization ('box Office Mojo') reads as sloppy. One sentence could be trimmed without loss.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, error behavior, parameter format, and the sibling alternative, which is nearly everything an agent needs; only finer usage constraints (valid date range, data freshness) are absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single date parameter and its YYYY-MM-DD format are already fully documented. The description merely restates the format and adds no semantics (e.g., how far back dates are available), 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 verb and resource: returns normalized rows from Box Office Mojo's domestic daily chart. It also names the sibling it should not be confused with (boxofficemojo_weekend_domestic), so an agent can distinguish daily vs. weekend charts without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes weekend requests to boxofficemojo_weekend_domestic, which effectively defines this tool's scope as the daily chart. It doesn't state when-not to use it (e.g., non-domestic or non-chart needs), but the alternative is clearly called out.

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