build_victim_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it is an offline helper making no API call, and it is sensitive to exact name matching. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clean Args list. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the schema.

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 offline helper with two string parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations already present, the description fully covers purpose, constraints, and parameter semantics. Nothing essential is missing 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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description's Args block explicitly defines both parameters: victim_name is the victim organisation name as listed (the `victim` field), and group_name is the ransomware group name (the `group` field). This gives the agent semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare field titles.

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 first sentence says exactly what the tool does: it constructs a Base64 victim ID for get_victim from two names. The phrase 'Offline helper; makes no API call' further distinguishes it from API-calling siblings like get_victim or search_victims.

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 explicit usage guidance: use it to build an ID from two names, but prefer reusing an `id` from a listing when available. It also warns that names must match the API's values exactly, which tells the agent when the tool is appropriate and when it is not.

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