search_virustotal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions auto-detection of input type, passive/public-source collection, and authorization requirements. However, it omits details on rate limits, response format, or failure modes.

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?

Four sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, auto-detection, requirement, and ethical note. Front-loaded and no superfluous text.

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?

Given 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers input types, requirement, and ethical use. It could mention expected output structure, but overall sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 covers json_output with a description, but target lacks one. The description compensates by stating target can be IP, domain, URL, or file hash and that input type is auto-detected. This adds meaningful context beyond the 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 tool checks IPs, domains, URLs, or file hashes against VirusTotal's 70+ engines. It auto-detects input type, distinguishing it from sibling search tools that use other data sources.

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 specifies the required VIRUSTOTAL_API_KEY environment variable and ethical use (authorized targets only). It implies when to use this tool (for VirusTotal checks) but does not explicitly compare with siblings like search_ip or search_domain.

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