boxofficemojo_genres

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 says 'Returns normalized rows' but doesn't disclose what normalization means, whether the data is cached/stale, whether it reflects current Box Office Mojo data, or any pagination/limits. For a read-only chart tool this is a moderate gap, but the lack of any behavioral detail beyond 'returns rows' leaves the agent guessing about data freshness and row structure.

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 with no filler. The first sentence names the resource, the second states the output. It's appropriately sized for a simple chart tool, though it could have used the space to add behavioral context instead of repeating 'Box Office Mojo' twice.

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 chart-listing tool with two optional enum parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, the lack of any mention of what the rows contain (genre names, gross figures, title counts) or how the sort options map to the data means an agent can't fully predict the response shape. The sibling boxofficemojo_genre (singular) suggests there's a related detail tool, but the description doesn't clarify the relationship.

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 both parameters have enums, so the schema already documents the sort field and direction. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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?

The description states a specific resource ('Box Office Mojo genre chart') and a clear action ('Returns normalized rows'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like boxofficemojo_genre (singular) and boxofficemojo_showdowns by indicating it returns the full genre chart rather than a single genre's details. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the singular boxofficemojo_genre sibling, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 implies usage context: it's a chart-level listing tool, and the sort parameters suggest it's for browsing/ranking genres. But it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like boxofficemojo_genre for single-genre detail. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer basic usage, but there's no explicit routing.

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