movie_boxoffice_cinema_weekly

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds that the date parameter refers to the 'complete week before the current date' and that the return is a pandas.DataFrame, which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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, containing a title, source URL, parameter docstring, and return type in four lines. It avoids redundancy for the most part, though the return line ('影票房-影院票房-轴票房排行') contains a typo and repeats the title. Overall, it is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify the returned DataFrame structure; it only states 'pandas.DataFrame' without column details. The date semantics are also vague, potentially causing misuse. While the annotations cover safety, the description lacks sufficient detail about output and precise date interpretation to be considered fully complete.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It provides a brief explanation of the date parameter: '当前日期前完整一周的票房数据' (box office data for the complete week before the current date). While this clarifies the date's role, it is ambiguous about whether the date is the end date or the start of the week, and it does not specify the format beyond the default value.

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 '电影票房-影院票房-周票房排行' (Movie box office - Cinema box office - Weekly ranking), naming the specific resource (cinema weekly box office) and the intended data (rankings). It distinguishes from sibling tools like movie_boxoffice_cinema_daily (daily) and movie_boxoffice_weekly (likely overall, not by cinema) by including both 'cinema' and 'weekly'.

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 for weekly cinema box office rankings but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides no exclusions or references to alternative tools. The date parameter description gives some context on how to set the date, but the 'when to use' guidance is only implicit.

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