ransomwareSearch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses matching behavior and scope, and the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'Search' and 'Matches'. It could add pagination or result format details, but for a simple search this is not critical.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause contributes (scope, matching behavior, use case). 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?

For a simple single-parameter search with no output schema, the description gives enough context to select and invoke it: what it searches, what it matches, and when it is useful. It doesn't explicitly state return shape, but it is reasonable to infer matching victim entries.

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% and the schema's keyword description already explains the parameter. The description adds context about which fields are matched but no additional parameter format or examples beyond the 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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource ('Search ransomware victims by keyword') and specifies matching fields (victim names, descriptions, other fields), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/aggregate ransomware tools like ransomwareRecent or ransomwareByCountry.

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?

Provides a clear use case ('checking if a specific company has been listed as a victim') that signals when to choose this tool over broad list or filter endpoints. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent.

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