list_movies_boxoffice

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, and the 'Get' wording is consistent with them. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the weekend scope, but the safety profile is already covered by the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action; the endpoint line and args line add minimal supporting context. It is not bloated, though the args line is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, this is nearly complete: an agent can correctly call it with no arguments. The only notable gap is the lack of guidance on the 'extended' parameter values, which keeps it from a 5.

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 must carry the parameter explanation. Saying 'extended: Extended information to include in the response' mostly restates the parameter name and gives no concrete allowed values, leaving an agent unable to know what strings are valid.

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 opening line 'Get the weekend box office' pairs a specific verb with a clear resource, and the endpoint 'GET /movies/boxoffice' confirms it. This cleanly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_movies_trending or list_movies_hot without requiring schema inspection.

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 establishes a clear context: it is for weekend box-office data, so an agent can infer when to choose it over the many list_movies_* alternatives. It does not, however, provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name an alternative tool.

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