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 'normalized release rows' and 'public page' context, but does not describe pagination behavior or result shape, which is mostly left to the schema.

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?

Three compact sentences with the resource description front-loaded and no filler. Minor oddity in 'box Office Mojo' casing but no wasted content.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to add invocation context, which it does (input selector rule, sibling routing). Sort/offset behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine constraint not encoded in the schema: 'Pass exactly one of id, path, or url.' This mutual-exclusivity rule meaningfully guides correct invocation.

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+resource ('Returns normalized release rows from a public Box Office Mojo franchise page'), which is concrete and distinguishable from a generic list endpoint. It names the sibling boxofficemojo_franchises and its role, aiding differentiation, though the naming is slightly clumsy.

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?

It hints at routing by pointing to boxofficemojo_franchises for the franchise chart, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over that one (e.g., 'use this once you have a specific franchise'). Usage is implied rather than stated as a rule.

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