Get a registered VirusTotal analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable non-obvious behaviors: each call consumes query quota, results are untrusted data, and it does not poll or initiate other analyses. This goes beyond annotations by warning about side effects (quota) and data trustworthiness, which an agent needs to invoke safely.

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 structured with a lead purpose sentence followed by clarifications. Every sentence adds value—quota consumption, exclusions, parameter guidance, and security warnings. It is slightly longer than necessary but avoids redundancy and front-loads the core purpose, making it 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?

For a read-only tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, behavioral side effects, and security context. It does not specify the return format or structure, but given the 'untrusted data' note and the tool's simplicity, the information provided is adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it clarifies that analysis_id is required and sufficient for file calls, and that request_id is needed for network analysis when VirusTotal reuses an analysis ID. This adds meaning beyond the schema's simple type definitions, though it does not describe formats or validation rules.

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 'Read one analysis registered to the current VTAI account' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings by noting it returns the analysis's own results, not the latest report, and by listing actions it does not perform (poll, upload, initiate). This distinguishes it from get_file_report, get_url_report, and submission tools.

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 practical usage context: it explains when to pass request_id (network analysis with reused IDs) versus only analysis_id (file calls), and clarifies what the tool does not do (poll, read local path, upload, initiate analysis). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools but gives enough behavioral cues to route correctly. The 'An ID is not authorization' warning also sets expectations for use.

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