Reanalyze an IP address with VirusTotal

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

Annotations only declare the write/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: no per-call confirmation, standard sharing, consumption of current rights/quota, recovery via get_submission(request_id) and get_analysis, an explicit ban on automatic POST retries, and the caveat that completion is not a safety verdict.

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 is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by trigger conditions, then parameter constraints, then recovery semantics. It is dense and somewhat clipped in style, but each sentence carries operational information with little waste.

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 and only two undocumented parameters, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: input formatting, ID lifecycle, quota/sharing implications, and the interruption-recovery path. Return-value shape is left unstated, which is the only notable gap for a submission-style tool.

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%, so the description must carry both parameters, and it largely does: the ip format is constrained (no port, brackets, zone or CIDR) and request_id is specified as a new canonical lowercase UUIDv4 retained across calls. Only minor details (e.g., explicit error behavior for a malformed IP) are absent.

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 (reanalyze) and resource (one IPv4 or IPv6 address) with the exact service (VirusTotal), which cleanly separates it from the sibling reanalyze_domain and from the get_*_report readers. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger and exclusion: 'Reanalyze only when the user explicitly requests analysis of this IP address,' which rules out speculative/pre-emptive use. It does not name the alternative tool (e.g., get_ip_report) for the non-explicit case, so routing guidance is clear but not fully complete.

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