ransomwareGroupVictims

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits itself. It does disclose that the tool returns victim names, countries, sectors, and publication dates, and 'Get' indicates a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential pagination, unknown-group behavior, or result limits. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, efficient sentence. It front-loads the main purpose and then specifies the return fields. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 is simple: one parameter, no output schema, no annotations. The description covers what the tool returns, and the parameter is well-documented in the schema. It lacks only minor contextual specifics such as exact-match requirements or how unknown groups are handled, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single parameter 'name' with examples ('lockbit3', 'clop', 'blackcat'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond restating 'specific ransomware group' and does not need to compensate. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get all victims claimed by a specific ransomware group.' It also lists the returned data fields (victim names, countries, sectors, publication dates), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ransomwareGroup' (likely group metadata) and 'ransomwareRecent' (recent activity). The scope is unambiguous.

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 usage: use this tool when you have a specific ransomware group name and want its claimed victims. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as 'ransomwareGroup' or 'ransomwareSearch', and given several similar ransomware-related siblings, more explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance would be helpful. The context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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