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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: every result is an unverified criminal claim rather than a confirmed breach, found=false is not proof of absence because only commercially reusable sources are covered, the $0.01 USDC x402 cost with the payment location in _meta, and the fact that invalid input or upstream failure is not charged.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage routing, then caveats, then cost/error behavior — a logical order with no filler sentences. The final sentence is dense with three separate facts (price, payment location, non-charging on failure), which slightly taxes readability but each clause is load-bearing.

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 enumerates what comes back (group, claimed date, first-observed date, country, sector, licensed sources), and it covers payment mechanics and error behavior. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this call.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage (company name or domain, with examples and length bounds), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description restates 'one company name or domain' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (ransomware leak-site claims) with an explicit scope limit: one company name or domain. It also names the sibling tools it is not (batch_exposure_check, recent_claims), so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool (a single vendor or target) and names two alternatives with their selecting conditions (batch_exposure_check for a list of up to 25 domains, recent_claims for the newest claims overall). This is textbook when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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