boxofficemojo_weekend_domestic_by_distributor

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses a specific behavioral trait: empty upstream pages return a typed not-found error. However, it lacks information on rate limits, data freshness, or whether the operation is read-only. The single disclosure is helpful but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: identification, output specification, and error behavior. It is efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose. No extraneous words, but could be slightly more structured.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the source, output type, and error behavior. However, it does not detail the output structure (columns of a normalized distributor row) or mention ordering/pagination. This leaves some ambiguity for the AI agent.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (week and year) with ranges. The description does not add any extra meaning or context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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 distributor rows from a specific Box Office Mojo chart. It distinguishes this tool from similar sibling tools by specifying 'by-distributor'. However, it could be more explicit about what 'normalized distributor rows' entails, such as the columns or data types.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like boxofficemojo_weekend_domestic or boxofficemojo_weekend_domestic_estimates. The description implies use for distributor-level data but does not provide context or exclusion criteria.

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