Get a VirusTotal domain report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: a query quota is applied, Unicode domain names are normalized, and the result is not exhaustive for the domain's URLs. It does not cover auth requirements or error behavior.

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 core action, then preconditions, then caveats; every sentence carries information. Slightly fragmented across four short lines, but nothing is wasted or repeated.

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 lookup with no output schema, the definition covers the input contract, the quota/normalization behavior, and the coverage limitation, while annotations carry the safety profile. What the report actually contains and how unknown domains are handled remain unstated, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 0% — the schema only labels the field 'Domain' with no description — so the description carries the burden and does so: it specifies the accepted format (no scheme, path or port) and notes Unicode normalization. That is meaningful semantic guidance beyond the schema, though no examples are given.

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 and resource ('look up existing intelligence for a DNS domain name') and immediately bounds the scope with 'without resolving or visiting it', which implicitly separates it from the sibling reanalyze_domain that triggers a fresh scan. An agent can tell what this retrieves and what it does not do.

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 gives an input-format precondition (domain without scheme, path or port) and implies this is a passive lookup, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over reanalyze_domain, get_url_report, or get_ip_report. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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