get_ransomnote

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by emphasizing 'full text' and 'one', clarifying that the tool returns the complete content of a single note. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by terse, useful argument definitions. No fluff or redundant content.

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 tool with an output schema, annotations, and detailed parameter semantics, the description is nearly complete. It includes the prerequisite workflow via the sibling reference and an example, though it does not explicitly state all possible edge cases or non-use conditions.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility. It fully compensates by explaining 'group' with a concrete example ('lockbit3') and by specifying that 'note_name' is an identifier from a sibling tool and should be given without a file extension. Both parameters are well clarified.

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 starts with a specific verb+object pair: 'Get the full text of one ransom note.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'list_group_ransomnotes' by focusing on fetching a single note's full text, and it names both required parameters.

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 implies the proper workflow by stating that note_name is 'a note identifier from `list_group_ransomnotes`'. This tells the agent that listing must precede getting, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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