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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them: it clarifies this is a 'stored' record versus the live endpoint, enumerates returned data (lifetime grosses, hydrated year, release-group, market history), and hedges with 'when available' to signal optional fields. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences: purpose first, then sibling routing. Front-loaded, no filler, and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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-value documentation is not required, but the description still summarizes the payload. Annotations cover safety, and the description covers purpose, routing, and data scope. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents title_id with its format and an example (tt0499549). The description only restates the tt… format, adding no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Fetch one stored ... title record') plus the exact resource and required identifier format. It also names the two closest siblings (datasets_boxofficemojo_search for discovery, boxofficemojo_title for the live endpoint), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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 the agent: use datasets_boxofficemojo_search to discover titles, boxofficemojo_title for the live endpoint, and this tool for the stored record. The when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives condition is stated directly, not implied.

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