get_sector_victims

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the purpose—no mention of result limits, pagination, exact-match semantics, or how the optional countryCode interacts with sector filtering. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but this description contributes nothing extra.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it concise and immediately understandable.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (1 required parameter, optional filter), the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety and open-world semantics, the description is largely complete. The only minor gap is the lack of usage guidance, but that is already scored under usage_guidelines. The tool's behavior is clear enough for correct invocation.

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 ('Business sector name' and 'Optional ISO-2 country code to filter by country'). The description's reference to 'a specific business sector' aligns with the 'sector' parameter but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('victims') with a clear qualifier ('from a specific business sector'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_country_victims or get_group_victims. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly differentiate from search_victims, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., search_victims, get_country_victims). The phrase 'from a specific business sector' only implies the tool is appropriate when a sector is known, but there are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing instructions.

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