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 that output is 'normalized release rows' from a public chart, which is mild but useful context; it says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or data freshness.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and only three short sentences. The 'year:' re-specification duplicates the schema's own definition, which is minor waste but not harmful.

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 no explanation. Purpose, source, scope, and the key alternative are all covered; only the broader sibling set (date/weekend domestic tools) is left unaddressed.

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 param 'year' is fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates the same 1977-2100 range without adding format or edge-case meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Returns normalized release rows') and a specific resource ('Box Office Mojo's public domestic yearly calendar-grosses chart'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the worldwide sibling by scoping to '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?

Explicitly names the alternative boxofficemojo_year_worldwide and the condition that selects it (worldwide vs domestic yearly box office). It does not address the other nearby siblings like boxofficemojo_date_domestic or boxofficemojo_weekend_domestic, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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