get_box_office

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 safety profile is covered. The description contributes useful detail about what data is returned (budget, opening weekend, lifetime grosses, broken out by area), but says nothing about missing-data behavior, partial results, or coverage across regions.

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 one-sentence purpose statement is front-loaded and waste-free, and the Args block is brief. The 'Args:' docstring style is slightly boilerplate but costs little.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still enumerates the main data categories. With a single required parameter and read-only annotations, the definition covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly, apart from id format.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden; it does clarify that 'id' means a Title id rather than a name id, which matters given siblings like get_name and search_names. However it gives no format hint (e.g. tt-prefixed vs numeric), leaving the agent to guess the expected identifier shape.

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 names the specific resource (budget, opening weekend, lifetime grosses, by area) scoped to a title, which is clearly distinct from siblings like get_title_credits or get_title_reviews. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with get_title, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_title or get_title_reviews, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the resource phrase.

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