get_victim

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by noting the tool 'Returns 404 if the listing was taken down' and that the returned data is a 'full enriched record,' which helps the agent understand failure modes without needing to call the tool.

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: purpose first, then ID format, then the alternative tool, then the 404 behavior, and finally an Args section. Every sentence contributes distinct information without redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers the ID source and format, the prerequisite tool for building an ID, the key error condition, and the enriched nature of the output. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are not needed in the description, so nothing essential is missing.

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 for explaining `victim_id`. The Args section explicitly defines it as 'Base64-encoded victim ID from a listing's `id` field,' and the earlier paragraph reveals the format (Base64 of 'victim_name@group_name'), giving the agent everything needed to construct or recognize a valid parameter value.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full enriched record for one victim by its Base64 ID.' It clearly distinguishes this from listing, searching, and filtering sibling tools by targeting a single victim via a unique ID, and even references the companion `build_victim_id` as an alternative path.

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 guidance: 'If you only have the names, use `build_victim_id` first,' and explains that the ID appears in every victim listing, which tells the agent when the ID is readily available. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use cases for other sibling tools like search_victims or filter_victims, but the single-record-by-ID scope makes the usage context clear.

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