boxofficemojo_franchises

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'public' (implying no auth) and 'normalized rows' (implying some data cleaning), but it does not disclose behavior such as default sorting, result limits, pagination, or the meaning of 'normalized'. This leaves significant ambiguity for a data-retrieval tool.

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 short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose ('Box Office Mojo franchise chart') and then adds a concise functional detail. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description fails to convey what the returned rows contain, what the chart ranks, or how sorting interacts with the data. An agent would struggle to know if this tool fits its needs or how to interpret the results. Given the low complexity, some additional context was expected.

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% for both parameters, but the parameter descriptions are minimal ('Sort field', 'Sort direction') with no allowed values or format details. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 it returns normalized rows from Box Office Mojo's franchise chart, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('franchise chart'). It does not explicitly differentiate from the singular sibling 'boxofficemojo_franchise', but the plural name and 'chart' phrasing imply a list vs. a detail endpoint.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like boxofficemojo_franchise or other Box Office Mojo charts. There are no context cues or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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