movie_boxoffice_yearly_first_week

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds the fact that it returns a pandas.DataFrame, which is useful. However, no additional behavioral details like rate limits, pagination, or data source quirks are provided.

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 (4 lines) and front-loads the purpose. However, it mixes Chinese and English with some redundancy (e.g., '票房票房' typo) and is somewhat cryptic for non-Chinese speakers. It earns its place but could be more structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the returned DataFrame contains, but it only says '年度首周票房'. The parameter format is under-specified, and there's no mention of what years are supported or whether the date should be the exact date of the first week.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It mentions ':param date: 当前日期所在年度的年度首周票房票房数据' (data for the year of the current date), which gives some meaning but is vague about format. The example default '20201018' suggests a date string but doesn't clarify the expected format completely.

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 tool as retrieving annual first-week box office data from a specific URL, with a specific parameter 'date' and return type. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning '年度首周票房' (yearly first-week box office), which separates it from other movie_boxoffice_* tools.

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 by showing the date parameter and return type, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. other movie box office tools. It provides minimal context: the date should be the current date's year for that year's first-week data, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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