imdb_title_box_office

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that titles without box-office data return `has_box_office: false` with all figures omitted rather than raising an error, and notes that IMDb reports figures independently. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but that is strongly implied. It does not mention output format or pagination, which are minor for this simple tool. The edge-case disclosure adds real value beyond the schema.

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 four sentences, tightly packed with essential information. It front-loads the purpose, then details the data returned, explains the no-data behavior, and closes with the input constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and a simple retrieval purpose, the description is largely complete. It covers what is returned, how missing data is handled, and the input requirement. It does not mention potential error conditions beyond the no-data case (e.g., invalid ID), but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity. It could note that the operation is read-only, but that is obvious from context.

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 schema already documents both parameters (id and url) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds the crucial constraint that exactly one of the two must be provided, which is not in the schema (required: []). This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent call the tool correctly. No further param details are needed.

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 verb ('returns') and a specific resource ('IMDb title box office summary'), and enumerates the exact data points returned (lifetime gross by market, domestic opening weekend, production budget). It clearly distinguishes this tool from other IMDb title tools by focusing on box-office data. No ambiguity about what it does.

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 provides a clear usage constraint: 'Pass exactly one of id or url.' It also implicitly indicates when to use it (when box-office figures are needed) but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like imdb_title_ratings or imdb_title_episodes. The edge-case behavior for titles without box-office data is also disclosed, which aids appropriate use. Missing explicit 'when-not' guidance keeps it from a 5.

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