datasets_boxofficemojo_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully indicates that records are stored in a search index and describes available filters, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe the response format, pagination behavior, or any ordering defaults. This is a moderate but incomplete disclosure for a search 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 efficiently structured: it opens with the core purpose, then states the data source, summarizes filter categories, and lists key enums. Each sentence contributes useful information without excessive verbosity, though it could be slightly tighter by avoiding the repetition of enum values already present in the schema.

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?

The description covers the main capabilities for a 19-parameter search tool, but it omits important contextual details such as the shape of the response, pagination constraints (e.g., page * page_size <= 10000), and how this tool relates to sibling Box Office Mojo dataset tools. It is adequate for basic search usage but leaves notable gaps given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all 19 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds a high-level grouping of filter dimensions but does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. It repeats enum values that are already in the schema, so the added value is minimal.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Box Office Mojo dataset.' It further clarifies the scope ('theatrical box-office records from public Box Office Mojo charts and title pages') and the search-index nature, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like datasets_boxofficemojo_item and datasets_boxofficemojo_facets.

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 through its focus on search and filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as datasets_boxofficemojo_item or datasets_boxofficemojo_facets. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given; the context 'stored in a search index' provides limited guidance.

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