ransomwareSearch

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully notes that matching spans victim names, descriptions and other fields (fuzzy multi-field search behavior), but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or the impact of the offset/limit caching 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action before the use case. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 search tool with a fully documented schema, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. Minor gaps remain: no indication of result format, ordering, or how the cached-response offset behaves.

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%, with limit, offset and keyword all documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description mentions what the keyword matches against but adds no syntax, formatting, or paging semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Search ransomware victims by keyword") and clarifies the search scope (victim names, descriptions, other fields). It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many ransomware siblings like ransomwareRecent or ransomwareGroupVictims.

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?

"Useful for checking if a specific company has been listed as a victim" gives one concrete usage scenario, so usage is implied rather than spelled out. It offers no when-not guidance and does not point to alternative tools such as ransomwareRecent for recent listings or ransomwareGroupVictims for group-scoped queries.

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