ransomwareRecent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it fetches data and returns specific fields, but does not mention any behavioral traits such as freshness guarantees, rate limits, or pagination. For a read operation, more context about data recency or size would be helpful.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'Fetch'. Every word adds value, no redundancy.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: data source, list of returned fields, and purpose. It lacks mention of ordering or maximum results, but for a simple recent-victims tool, it is largely complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds value by listing the return fields, which compensates for the lack of output 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 uses specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'most recent ransomware victims' from a named source (ransomware.live), and lists the returned fields (name, group, country, sector, publication date, associated URLs). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ransomwareSearch (which filters) and ransomwareGroupVictims (by group).

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 use for retrieving recent victims without filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ransomwareSearch or ransomwareByCountry. No 'when-not-to-use' guidance is provided.

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