VirusTotal file hash lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the description only needs to add beyond that. It does: accepted hash algorithms (MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256) and the crucial disclosure that the response is a compact summary rather than the full per-engine report. It omits API-key/rate-limit behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then a tightly packed usage sentence listing trigger sources and returned fields. Every clause adds information; nothing is 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?

One required parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema that carries return structure. The description supplies exactly the gaps an agent needs: when to reach for it and that the result is a summarized detection ratio rather than the raw engine breakdown.

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 single file_hash parameter is fully documented in the schema; the description only restates the accepted hash formats. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, 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?

States a specific verb (look up) and resource (a file hash on VirusTotal), and the return content makes the scope unambiguous. The resource type cleanly separates it from siblings lookup_domain, lookup_ip, and scan_url, which target different observable types.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it and enumerates concrete sources of a hash (sample, email attachment, EDR alert, sandbox report) plus the goal (known-malicious?). It does not name alternative sibling tools or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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