ransomwareGroupVictims

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the returned data, which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters, nor about name-matching semantics.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the return payload immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple read-only lookup with a fully documented schema, the description covers the action and the return fields, which is most of what an agent needs given the annotations carry the safety profile. It stops short of explaining pagination or how the group name must be formatted/matched, but those gaps are minor.

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%: the schema documents the required group name with examples ('lockbit3', 'clop', 'blackcat') and both pagination parameters fully. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ('Get') and resource (victims claimed by a named ransomware group), and the summary of returned fields (names, countries, sectors, publication dates) makes the intent unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely named siblings like ransomwareGroup, ransomwareGroups, or ransomwareSearch, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name alone.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling ransomware tools (ransomwareGroup, ransomwareRecent, ransomwareByCountry, ransomwareBySector, ransomwareSearch). There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no routing hints — the agent must guess from the name alone.

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