get_recent_victims

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open world). The description adds useful behavioral context about ordering (discovered vs attacked), pagination (offset and next_offset), and the full parameter for enrichment fields. However, it does not disclose what 'active' means, how results are sorted by default, or any edge cases like rate limits, so coverage is partial.

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 concise with a clear one-line purpose followed by a structured Args block. The structure is easy to parse, but the first sentence's fixed '100' is inconsistent with the limit parameter, introducing minor confusion that could have been avoided by wording it as 'recent' without a hard number.

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 (not shown) and safety annotations, so the description need not repeat return types. It covers parameter semantics well and mentions pagination via offset and next_offset. However, it fails to clarify the meaning of 'active', the actual default record count (description says 100 but default is 50), and any nuances about result ordering stability, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates excellently by explaining each parameter: order with two enum meanings, limit range (1-200), offset semantics with next_offset reference, and full switching between slim and enriched output. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema and enables correct usage.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves recent active ransomware victims, with a specific scope (100 most recent). However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like search_victims or filter_victims, and the fixed '100' contradicts the configurable limit parameter (default 50, max 200), which could confuse an agent.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_victims or filter_victims. It implies it is for browsing recent data, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer the selection logic.

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