movie_boxoffice_daily

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: it documents the date limitation (only previous day's data) and the return type (pandas.DataFrame), which are not evident from the schema or annotations. It also provides the source URL, adding transparency about the data origin.

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 short and follows a clear structure: title, URL, parameter documentation, and return documentation. Every section earns its place, but the opening line repeats the title exactly, and the parameter/return sections are minimal. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though not excessively polished.

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 is simple with one parameter and safe annotations, and the description provides the source URL, date limitation, and return type. However, there is no output schema and the description only says '每日票房' (daily box office) without detailing what columns or aggregated data the DataFrame contains. This leaves the agent guessing about the exact return structure, so the description is adequate but incomplete.

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 only provides the parameter name and type with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates somewhat by stating the date constraint ('只能设置当前日期的前一天') and the type as str, but the type is already in the schema and redundant. It does not explicitly specify the expected date format (e.g., YYYYMMDD), although the default value '20240219' hints at it. Thus it adds meaningful but incomplete parameter semantics.

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 identifies the resource as daily movie box office data (电影票房-单日票房) and returns a DataFrame of daily box office. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a specific verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as movie_boxoffice_monthly or movie_boxoffice_realtime.

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 includes a crucial usage constraint: '只能设置当前日期的前一天的票房数据' (dates are limited to the day before the current date), which tells the agent when the tool can be used. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the movie_boxoffice_* siblings, nor does it mention alternatives. The usage context is implied by the name and title rather than stated directly.

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