Get a VirusTotal IP address report

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/no-destructive, and the description goes further by disclosing that VTAI normalizes the address, that the call consumes query quota, and that a missing report does not establish safety. Those are real behavioral traits an agent needs and none are in the structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing work: purpose and non-contact semantics first, then input format, then quota cost, then the not-found caveat. Nothing is redundant and the most important framing is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what the call costs (quota), what it does not do (contact the host), and how to interpret an empty result. Report field contents are left unexplained, which is a minor gap for a lookup tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile.

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% for the single `ip` parameter, so the description carries the load and does so usefully: no brackets, no port, no zone, no CIDR suffix. It adds format constraints absent from the schema, though it could also note accepted literal formats (e.g. bare IPv6) more explicitly.

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 (existing intelligence for one IPv4/IPv6 address) with the scope qualifier 'without contacting it', which distinguishes it from the sibling reanalyze_ip that would trigger a fresh analysis. An agent can pick this tool over its siblings from the description alone.

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 phrase 'without contacting it' implicitly routes the agent away from the reanalysis siblings and toward cached intelligence lookups, and the missing-report caveat sets expectations about results. It stops short of naming reanalyze_ip as the alternative or stating explicit when-not conditions.

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