movie_boxoffice_cinema_daily

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by including the source URL (endata.com.cn) and the behavioral constraint that the returned data is for the day before the specified date. However, it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or the exact output structure beyond stating it returns a pandas DataFrame.

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 compact, consisting of a title line, a URL, and short param/return docstrings. It is not verbose, but the return line '影票房-影院票房-日票房排行' is largely redundant with the title, which slightly detracts from conciseness.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, but the description is incomplete for real-world use. It does not explain the columns of the returned DataFrame, specify the date format, or clarify whether the ranking covers all cinemas or a specific subset. The note about the previous day's data is present, but critical details for invoking the tool correctly are missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining the 'date' parameter. It provides a Chinese explanation that the date refers to the previous day's box office data, giving semantic meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it fails to specify the required format (e.g., YYYYMMDD) or clarify that the parameter is optional despite having a default value, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 '电影票房-影院票房-日票房排行' (Movie Box Office - Cinema Box Office - Daily Ranking), which clearly identifies the tool's function as retrieving daily cinema box office rankings. It distinguishes from siblings like movie_boxoffice_daily and movie_boxoffice_cinema_weekly by specifying 'cinema' and 'daily' in the title. However, it lacks an explicit verb, relying on a noun phrase fragment.

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 the resource name and date parameter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does provide a usage hint by noting the date parameter represents '当前日期前一日的票房数据' (box office data of the day before the current date), which tells users about data availability, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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