vt_get_domain_report_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral transparency. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') and lists report contents, but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error/edge-case behavior. It provides some useful context but is not rich.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the second sentence lists useful included data. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

An output schema is present, so return values are covered. The description effectively summarizes the report content and the tool's simple single-parameter interface. It is adequately complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'domain' parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema gives, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Get' and the specific resource 'VirusTotal intelligence report for a domain'. It lists concrete included data (WHOIS, DNS, SSL, reputation, related files/URLs), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that target files, URLs, or IPs.

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 clearly indicates use for domains, giving enough context for an agent to select it when domain intelligence is needed. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives like vt_get_url_report_tool, but the domain-specific scope is unambiguous.

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