ransomwareByCountry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the country-filter semantics but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or data freshness beyond what the schema states. Adequate given the annotation coverage.

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?

Two compact sentences: the core action front-loaded, followed by a short list of example codes. Every element earns its place with no filler.

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, filtered-list tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. The only minor gap is that return content ('victims') is never characterized, but the annotation set and schema carry most of the load.

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 countryCode, limit, and offset are fully documented in the schema, including the same ISO 3166-1 examples. The description merely restates the countryCode semantics, adding no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource+scope: 'Get ransomware victims filtered by country'. This is distinguishable from siblings like ransomwareBySector and ransomwareRecent by its country filter. It stops short of naming alternatives, but the resource and filter are unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the country-filter scope, and the required countryCode makes the entry condition obvious. However, with many ransomware siblings (ransomwareSearch, ransomwareBySector, ransomwareGroups), the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives.

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