Reanalyze a domain with VirusTotal

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the recovery workflow with get_submission and get_analysis, the directive to 'never automatically repeat POST,' and the caveat that domain analysis does not establish URL safety. This significantly enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and error handling.

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 front-loaded purpose statement followed by essential operational details. While it contains six sentences, each earns its place—no fluff. It could be slightly tighter, but the information density is high and well-organized.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter constraints, sharing model, quota implications, recovery procedure, and a critical limitation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates. It explains the domain parameter ('without scheme, path or port') and the request_id parameter (must be a 'new canonical lowercase UUIDv4' and 'Reuse the ID only for the same operation'). This provides all necessary parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Request'), resource ('reanalysis of a domain'), and a critical constraint ('without scheme, path or port'), which clearly differentiates it from the sibling reanalyze_ip. An agent can immediately understand what the tool does and how it differs from other reanalysis 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 clear usage context: it mentions 'Standard sharing applies; no per-call confirmation,' 'Uses current rights and quota,' and instructs to 'Reuse the ID only for the same operation.' It also gives recovery guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., reanalyze_ip for IPs), though the purpose clarity largely compensates.

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