movie_boxoffice_weekly

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds specific behavioral context beyond annotations: it can only retrieve data for the full week containing the given date, and the return type is a pandas DataFrame. This is valuable for setting expectations.

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 and uses a structured docstring format (:param, :type, :return, :rtype), making it easy to parse. The URL is slightly redundant but adds provenance; the title/return duplication is minor. Overall, it is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers the source, the parameter's meaning, and the return type. It lacks example usage or DataFrame column details, but the default value and URL provide enough context for basic invocation. Annotations enrich the picture further.

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 zero description coverage for the 'date' parameter, so the description carries the full burden. The description explains that the date determines the complete week being queried ('只能获取指定日期所在完整周的票房数据') and specifies the type as str, which gives the parameter clear semantic meaning.

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 that this tool retrieves weekly movie box office data ('单周票房'), names the source URL, and specifies the key parameter constraint. It distinguishes itself from sibling movie_boxoffice tools (daily, monthly, yearly) by its weekly scope.

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 box office data through its title and param description, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools like movie_boxoffice_daily or movie_boxoffice_monthly. The constraint that the date must fall within the target week is a useful usage guideline, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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