Hash Lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: rate limits (30/hr free, 500/hr Pro) and a summary of returned fields, which helps the agent understand side effects and limits.

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 concise (6-7 sentences) and front-loaded: it starts with purpose, then usage guidelines, then rate limits, then return fields. No redundant or irrelevant information; every sentence adds value.

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 tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values in detail, but it still lists the key fields. The description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and parameter constraints, making it fully actionable for an AI agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already fully documents the file_hash parameter with accepted formats and examples. The description does not add any new meaning beyond what is in 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?

The description clearly states the tool queries MalwareBazaar for file hashes (MD5/SHA1/SHA256) and returns malware family, file type, size, tags, dates, and download count. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ioc_lookup (multi-source) and others, satisfying the 'specific verb+resource, distinguishes from siblings' criterion.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use to check if file hash is known malware; use ioc_lookup for auto-detection of all IOC types.' It also lists companion tools with their purposes, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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