compare_verdicts

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals concurrency across multiple backends, normalization into triple, consensus with disagreement notes, and includes a security warning about untrusted vendor data. It does not cover rate limits or error handling, but these are partially mitigated by the presence of an output schema.

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 well-structured, with the main action in the first sentence, followed by process details and a security note. It is appropriately sized for the complexity and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more concise without losing meaning.

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 complexity (multi-source, concurrency, consensus), the description covers the key aspects: sources, normalization, consensus, and security. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. Minor gaps like timeout or failure handling are acceptable for a comparison tool of this nature.

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 single parameter 'hash' is fully described in the input schema (MD5, SHA1, SHA256 hex digest). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 verb 'compare verdicts', the resource 'one file hash', and the scope 'across every enabled source'. It lists specific backends (Hybrid Analysis, MalwareBazaar, tria.ge, VirusTotal) and explains the normalization and consensus process, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_hash or bulk_hash_lookup.

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 context on when to use the tool: to compare verdicts from multiple sources for a single hash. While it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, the unique cross-source functionality is implied, and the sibling list offers alternatives for single-source or bulk lookups.

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