malware_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behaviors. It states the tool returns verdict, AV detection, and analysis details, and requires an API key. However, it does not mention rate limits, pagination, or any side effects. For a read-only lookup, this is adequate but lacks detail on potential constraints.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action and purpose, and includes necessary context (API key requirement). Every word is informative; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It specifies input, output summary, and authentication. A minor gap is the lack of mention of possible error conditions or response format, but for this type of tool the description suffices.

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?

The sole parameter 'hash' has schema description 'File hash (MD5, SHA1, or SHA256)', which is clear. The description adds value by enumerating the acceptable hash types, going beyond the schema's generic string type. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description supplements rather than repeats.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'search', the resource 'Hybrid Analysis sandbox', and the type of input (file hash). It lists the hash types accepted and what is returned, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings which target different services like AbuseIPDB, Bazaar, or OTX.

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 indicates the tool is for searching Hybrid Analysis using a file hash and mentions the API key requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other hash lookups like otx_hash or bazaarHash, nor does it provide guidance on when not to use it. The sibling list contains many similar tools, so more explicit guidance would help.

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