get_ransom_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: the auth requirement ('[Pro tier, requires RANSOMWARE_LIVE_API_KEY]') and the dependency that noteName requires group to be set. This goes beyond what annotations provide and fully discloses the tool's behavior.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then efficiently explains all three usage modes. There is no redundant phrasing; every clause adds necessary guidance. It is both concise and structured logically, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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 tool has an output schema, so return format is covered. The description covers the two key behavioral aspects: the progressive disclosure pattern and the API key requirement. It also implies the dependency chain (group before noteName). For a tool with this complexity, the description is complete and an agent can call it correctly without additional inference.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the progressive relationship: group is optional to list groups, but when combined with noteName, it selects a specific note. It also clarifies that noteName values come from the output of calling with group set, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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's purpose: 'Get ransom note text left by ransomware groups.' It then specifies three distinct usage modes (no args, group only, group+noteName), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_negotiation_chat or get_yara_rules. The verb-resource pair is specific and the progressive disclosure is explicit.

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 gives explicit step-by-step instructions: 'Call with no arguments to discover which groups have notes on file; add `group` to list that group's note identifiers; add `noteName` (from that list) to read the full note text.' This fully explains when and how to use the tool, including the necessary call sequence. It also notes the API key requirement, adding critical context for when the tool can be used.

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