ransomwareRecent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true (external network call), so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the returned fields (victim name, group, country, sector, publication date, URLs), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits pagination behavior, though offset/limit are schema-documented.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with purpose and return shape front-loaded. Every clause carries information.

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, non-mutating feed tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece: the return shape. Pagination via limit/offset is left to the schema, which documents it adequately, so the definition is nearly complete.

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%, and both limit and offset are fully documented in the schema with ranges and defaults. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not enriching.

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 clear verb+resource ('fetch the most recent ransomware victims') and names the data source (ransomware.live), which distinguishes it from vendor-agnostic siblings. It stops short of explicitly differentiating the 'recent' feed from siblings like ransomwareSearch, ransomwareByCountry, or ransomwareBySector.

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 word 'most recent' implies a recency-feed use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Given the dense cluster of ransomware siblings (ransomwareGroup, ransomwareSearch, ransomwareByCountry, ransomwareBySector, ransomlookRecent), an agent gets no help choosing between them.

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