boxofficemojo_lifetime_grosses

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'credential-free' (good) and 'normalized rows', but fails to explain pagination behavior, sorting, or what the rows contain. The output format is entirely undocumented, which is a significant gap 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 extremely concise at three short sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value: what the tool does, that it returns normalized rows, that it is credential-free, and the allowed area values. No wasted words.

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?

Given the simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description should explain the output format and pagination. It does not specify what fields the rows contain (e.g., rank, title, gross), nor how offset works. This leaves significant ambiguity for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds the 'credential-free' context but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond the schema. It lists area values but that duplicates the schema. Thus a 3 is appropriate.

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 lifetime gross chart, and specifies the area parameter values. The tool name and description effectively convey it provides all-time gross data, distinguishing it from sibling tools like boxofficemojo_year_domestic. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other chart tools, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boxofficemojo_year_domestic or boxofficemojo_weekend_domestic. The description lacks any context about when to choose this tool over others, resulting in a low score.

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