Get a VTAI submission receipt

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds critical operational detail: it does not upload, contact VirusTotal, or consume query quota; access is revalidated; a missing receipt or submission_unknown never authorizes another POST; unknown can be permanent; and a file report is not a receipt. This is rich, non-redundant behavioral context that materially helps the agent invoke the tool safely.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences each add a dense, non-obvious caveat (no upload/quota, revalidation, POST prohibition, permanent unknown, file-report distinction). There is no fluff, and the structure moves from primary function to operational constraints in a logical order.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, edge-case statuses, and relation to sibling tools, which is unusually complete. It does not explicitly describe the receipt's field structure or the exact response envelope, but for a simple retrieval tool this is a minor gap given the rich operational and behavioral detail provided.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must carry semantic weight for sha256. It does, by identifying it as the submitted SHA256 and linking the resulting 'submitted' status to the original analysis ID for get_analysis. It does not specify format or constraints, but for a single string parameter this is sufficient meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'recover' and resource 'receipt' scoped to the current VTAI account, keyed by a submitted SHA256. It also distinguishes itself from get_analysis by noting that a submitted receipt yields the original analysis ID for that tool, and from file reports by stating 'An existing file report is not a receipt.' This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable relative to its siblings.

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 when to use this tool (to get a submission receipt rather than a file report or analysis) and even points to get_analysis as the downstream consumer of the yielded analysis ID. However, it does not explicitly enumerate sibling alternatives or state clear when-not conditions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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