vt_get_ip_report_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-style operation ('Get') and lists the content of the report, but it does not mention potential API key requirements, rate limits, or whether it makes a live network call. This is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves some context unstated.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the second sentence provides a clear list of included data. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with output schema available, the description is sufficient. It names the primary use and key output categories. It falls short only on missing alternatives and access prerequisites, but those are not critical for a straightforward read report.

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 the 'ip' parameter well-described in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline 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 tool gets a VirusTotal intelligence report for an IP address, with a specific verb and resource. The included items (geolocation, ASN, reputation, related files, URLs, domains) further distinguish it from sibling tools that report on URLs, domains, or files.

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 when an IP address report is needed, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. There is clear context, but no explicit exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools like vt_get_url_report_tool or vt_get_domain_report_tool.

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