search_victims

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by explaining that q is matched case-insensitively as a substring of both victim name and website, and that all filters combine with AND logic. It also discloses pagination semantics via next_offset and the meaning of the full flag. This gives the agent a clear model of how the tool behaves at call time.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides a compact, structured Args list. Every sentence adds value: matching behavior, filter logic, parameter details, and pagination. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given 8 optional parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers search semantics, filtering, sorting, pagination, and the full flag, while the output schema handles return-value details. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full responsibility for parameter documentation, and it succeeds. Every parameter is explained: q with examples, group/sector with references to list endpoints, country with ISO format, order with enum values, limit with a 1-200 range, offset with pagination guidance, and full with its effect. This is exemplary compensation for an otherwise bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Free-text search across victim organisation names and website domains.' It clearly defines the tool's scope and differentiates it from sibling tools like search_press and filter_victims by naming the searched entity (victims) and the two searchable fields (name and domain). The Q parameter and matching behavior further clarify the intended use.

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 clear usage context: use this tool for free-text search over victim names/websites, with optional structured filters combined via AND logic. It also instructs on exact values by referencing list_groups and list_sectors, and explains pagination using next_offset. It does not explicitly contrast with filter_victims or get_recent_victims, but the described behavior is enough to infer appropriate use.

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