Get a VirusTotal file report

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description adds valuable context: it consumes VTAI query quota, does not upload or rescan, and frames AI insights/detection names as non-executable evidence. This helps an agent understand cost, side effects, and how to interpret the response.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second covers quota and side effects, and the third adds an important interpretive warning. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with rich annotations, the description is complete: it tells the agent what to pass, what side effects to expect, and how to interpret the output. Even without an output schema, the mention of AI insights and detection names gives enough context about the report contents.

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 only provides a 'hash' string with no description (0% coverage), so the description carries the full burden. It fully compensates by specifying the exact accepted formats: hexadecimal MD5, SHA-1, or SHA-256.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Look up an existing file report') and enumerates accepted hash formats (hex MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling URL/domain/IP report tools. It also explicitly separates itself from submission tools by noting it does not upload or rescan.

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 makes the selection criterion clear: use this tool when you have a hexadecimal file hash and want an existing report. It excludes upload/rescan behavior, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when to prefer get_analysis or get_submission.

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