boxofficemojo_brand

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context: 'public' indicates no auth, and 'normalized release rows' describes the output transformation. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default sort, error handling, or what happens if multiple/zero identifiers are passed. The description is reasonable but not rich.

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?

The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and output; the second provides the key usage constraint. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core function.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return type ('normalized release rows') and the required identifier. It doesn't elaborate on sort/offset semantics, but those are documented in the input schema. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though it could mention default behavior or what 'normalized' entails.

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. The description adds critical semantics by mandating 'exactly one of id, path, or url,' which clarifies the mutual exclusivity and required-ness beyond the schema's empty required array. It also implies that sort/offset/sortDir are optional modifiers. This adds meaningful guidance.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns normalized release rows from a Box Office Mojo brand page, using a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('brand page'). It distinguishes from siblings like boxofficemojo_brands (plural, likely a list) and other boxofficemojo detail tools by explicitly calling out 'brand detail' and the output shape.

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 a clear usage constraint: 'Pass exactly one of id, path, or url.' This tells the agent which identifier to provide. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is clear enough for a single-entity retrieval tool.

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