get_recent_press

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: records are enriched with infostealer data, linked to ransomware victims by domain match, and limited to the most recent 100 before filtering. It does not detail pagination edge cases or rate limits, but the added context is valuable.

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: the core behavior is in the first sentence, followed by enrichment context and a clear Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the main behavior, enrichment, and all parameters. It does not mention whether `next_offset` is returned in the output schema, but the output schema likely covers that; overall it is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 the full burden for parameter meaning. It explains country (narrow before top 100), limit (max records 1-200), offset (skip records, use next_offset), and full (include all enrichment fields). This adds real semantics beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 ('Get'), a precise resource ('100 most recent tracked cyberattack press entries'), and adds enrichment context (infostealer data, ransomware victim linking). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_press and get_recent_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 explains the default behavior (top 100) and how to paginate using `next_offset`, which gives clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling list and the tool's specific scope make the intended use clear.

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