get_iocs

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the Pro tier requirement and RANSOMWARE_LIVE_API_KEY, as well as the behavioral difference between omitting and providing the group parameter. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but the annotations already establish the safe read-only nature.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the auth requirement and resource, then concise usage modes. Every clause adds necessary information, with no wasted words.

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?

The description covers auth, parameter behavior, and filtering, giving an agent everything needed to call the tool correctly. Since an output schema exists, omitting return details is appropriate. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining the interaction between group and type: omitting group lists groups/types, adding group returns actual values, and type filters the results. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 the tool gets Indicators of Compromise for ransomware groups, listing specific IoC types (file hashes, IPs, domains, emails, BTC addresses, URLs). It also distinguishes two modes (summary vs values) and an optional filter, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_yara_rules or get_mitre_ttps.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: call with no group to see which groups have IoCs and their types, add group to get actual values, and optionally filter by type. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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