search_hash

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses: no detonation, hash validation, concurrent multi-source queries, key skipping, and a security warning about untrusted data. This covers all critical behavioral aspects.

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?

Well-organized: purpose, validation, backend details, parameter behavior, security note. Every section earns its place, though slightly verbose for the backend list format.

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 tool with output schema and good schema coverage, the description covers all necessary context: input validation, backend options, parameter behavior, and security. No gaps.

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 already describes both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds behavioral nuance for the sandbox parameter (null = all, explicit = single) and explains API key handling, providing value beyond the schema.

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?

Clear verb ('Look up') and resource ('intelligence for a file hash') with immediate differentiator ('fast, no detonation') that sets it apart from sibling tools like submit_sample or scan_url.

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?

Explains when to use (existing intel lookup), how the sandbox parameter works (null queries all, explicit queries one), and references get_report for full triage details. Could explicitly state when not to use (e.g., need detonation) but the context is clear.

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