vt_get_url_report_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether an API key is required, or what happens when no report exists for the URL (e.g., whether it returns an error or an empty result). No side effects or rate limits are mentioned.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the tool's core purpose and earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, but the description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., API key) and behavior for unanalyzed URLs. It is minimally complete but leaves important gaps that could affect correct usage in a larger toolset.

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 'url' parameter is already fully described in the schema with 100% coverage ('The URL to get the report for'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 'Get VirusTotal analysis report for a URL' uses a clear verb and resource, specifying the URL scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools for files, domains, and IPs by its 'URL' scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from vt_scan_url_tool, though 'get report' implies retrieval rather than submission.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vt_scan_url_tool or other report tools. It does not mention that this is for retrieving existing reports rather than submitting new scans, nor any prerequisites or contextual use cases.

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