ransomwareBySector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get ransomware victims' which implies a read operation but adds no details about return format, pagination, error handling, or whether the list is exhaustive. There is no mention of what the response contains or any limitations. This is a notable gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 one concise sentence with a clear verb, object, and scope, followed by a useful list of examples. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 the single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains what the tool does but does not indicate what the response looks like (e.g., list of victim names, counts, or full details). It also doesn't mention case sensitivity or allowed values beyond the examples. For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100% – the schema already describes the 'sector' parameter with the same examples. The tool description repeats the examples and adds the concept of filtering, but it does not add meaningful new semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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: 'Get ransomware victims filtered by sector or industry.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('ransomware victims'), and specifies the filter scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like ransomwareByCountry (filter by country) and ransomwareSearch (search). The examples further clarify the expected values.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool: when you need victims by sector. The examples ('healthcare', 'finance', etc.) provide practical context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use ransomwareByCountry for country filtering,' so it stops short of a perfect score.

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