Get a VirusTotal file report

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

With annotations already covering readOnly/idempotent/destructive, the description adds crucial operational context: quota consumption, no upload/rescan, missing report semantics, and a safety note about AI insights not being executable instructions. This is behavior beyond what annotations convey.

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 and accepted formats. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the wording is somewhat dense and the final AI insights sentence is a bit tangential to tool invocation.

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 no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, identifier requirements, side effects (none), quota usage, and negative alternatives. It stops short of explaining what a report contains, but annotations and the context make it sufficiently complete.

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% for a single 'hash' parameter, so the description must compensate. It specifies the three accepted hash algorithms and notes the hash should be verified, adding meaningful semantics. Slightly less than 5 because it doesn't explicitly state format constraints beyond algorithm names.

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 (file report) with the exact acceptable identifier formats (MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256). Clear differentiation from siblings that handle URLs, domains, and IPs.

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 states when not to use it: 'Does not upload or rescan the file' and 'never authorizes a submission or starts an analysis', which routes the agent to submit_file/reanalyze tools. It stops short of naming those alternatives directly, so not quite a 5.

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