VirusTotal IP lookup

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add context beyond that -- which it does, by disclosing the shape of the response ("compact summary") and the exact fields returned. It does not mention rate limits or quota behavior, keeping it out of the 5 range.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by when-to-use and a return summary; almost every sentence earns its place. A small formatting blemish (double-backtick ``page_ip``) and slight redundancy in restating the return twice keep it from a 5.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, selection context, and response shape. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without further inference.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single `ip` parameter is documented as "An IPv4 or IPv6 address" in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the schema, so the adequate-but-unremarkable baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Look up an IP address on VirusTotal") and enumerates exactly what is returned (detection ratio, reputation, ASN, org, network range, country). It never names a specific sibling, but the IP-vs-domain-vs-hash resource split makes it distinguishable from lookup_domain and lookup_hash.

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?

It gives clear positive triggers: use it for an *IP indicator* and when pivoting from a domain's resolved IP or a urlscan-reported ``page_ip``. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so it stops short of the top tier.

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