otx_hash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only states the supported hash types but does not disclose rate limits, API key requirements, response format, or behavior when a hash is not found. Minimal behavioral insight.

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?

Two efficiently worded sentences. No superfluous information. Purpose is front-loaded, making it easy to quickly understand the tool's function.

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 no annotations, the description lacks information about return values, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., API key). For a simple hash lookup tool, more context about expected output is necessary for completeness.

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 100% with a single parameter 'hash' described as 'File hash (MD5, SHA1, or SHA256)'. The description reiterates this and adds context about threat intelligence, but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Look up'), the resource ('file hash'), and the source ('AlienVault OTX'). It specifies supported hash types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like otx_domain and otx_ip.

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 implies usage for threat intelligence lookups but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other hash lookup tools like bazaarHash or threatfoxSearch). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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