Reanalyze a domain with VirusTotal

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds substantial context on top: standard sharing, no per-call confirmation, consumption of current rights/quota, and the caveat that a domain analysis does not establish the safety of each URL on that domain. The request_id reuse and recovery semantics further disclose behavior the annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose and the explicit-request gate are front-loaded, and the operational notes are dense but mostly earn their place. The request_id and recovery guidance is necessary but slightly overloads a single short block.

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 two-param POST with no output schema, the definition covers the input format, request_id lifecycle, quota/sharing implications, failure recovery, and a scope caveat. It stops short of describing what the immediate POST response contains, but the get_submission/get_analysis path mitigates that gap.

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 carry both parameters, and it does: the domain must omit scheme, path, and port, and request_id must be a new canonical lowercase UUIDv4 generated before the call and reused only for the same operation. This meaningfully compensates for the absent schema documentation.

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 ('Request standard VirusTotal reanalysis of a domain') and immediately constrains the input format ('without scheme, path or port'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like reanalyze_ip and get_domain_report.

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 gates invocation: 'Reanalyze only when the user explicitly requests analysis of this domain,' and gives an interruption-recovery path via get_submission then get_analysis with an instruction never to auto-repeat the POST. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g., reanalyze_ip, submit_url) for comparison, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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