boxofficemojo_franchise

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'normalized release rows' (output behavior), that it accesses a 'public' page (implying no auth required), and that exactly one of id/path/url must be passed (input validation). It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only data retrieval tool, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by a necessary usage constraint. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core functionality, the input selector constraint, and the public nature of the data. It mentions the output type ('release rows') but doesn't detail the row structure or pagination behavior. For a simple fetch tool, this is sufficiently complete.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful constraint beyond the schema: 'Pass exactly one of id, path, or url,' which is critical for correct invocation and is not expressed in the schema's optional fields. This elevates the score above the baseline.

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's function: 'Box Office Mojo franchise detail. Returns normalized release rows from a public Box Office Mojo franchise page.' It uses a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like boxofficemojo_franchises (list) by focusing on a single franchise's detail.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving franchise details and gives an explicit input constraint: 'Pass exactly one of id, path, or url.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, so it lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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