bazaar_lookup_hash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses return content (imphash, malware family, tags, vendor detections) and implies a read-only lookup, but it does not mention potential API prerequisites, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 that states the action, the resource, the accepted input formats, and the return fields. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, accepted input, and key return fields. It could add explicit context about external API access or that the operation is read-only, but the essential information needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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 description coverage is 100% and already documents the hash parameter with accepted types. The description's mention of 'SHA256, MD5, or SHA1' merely restates the schema, adding no new semantic value beyond it.

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 a specific verb ('Look up'), a resource ('a malware sample in MalwareBazaar'), and the accepted hash types ('by SHA256, MD5, or SHA1'). It distinguishes itself from family/tag search siblings by focusing on hash-based lookup, though it does not explicitly name any alternative sibling.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent should use this tool when it has a file hash to resolve. However, the description provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives such as bazaar_search_family or bazaar_get_imphash_siblings.

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