otx_hash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It notes the external source (AlienVault OTX) and the action ('Look up') implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose any authentication requirements, rate limits, or the shape of the returned threat intelligence. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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, 14-word sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. There is no filler or unnecessary elaboration, making it appropriately concise.

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, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose but doesn't specify what kind of threat intelligence is returned (e.g., reputation scores, detections). While not severely incomplete, it could be slightly enriched to be fully self-sufficient.

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 100% and the schema already describes the parameter as 'File hash (MD5, SHA1, or SHA256)'. The description redundantly repeats the supported hash types, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Look up threat intelligence') with a specific resource ('a file hash') and names the provider ('AlienVault OTX'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like otx_ip and otx_domain by explicitly targeting hashes.

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 clear context that this tool is for file hashes, and the mention of supported hash types (MD5, SHA1, SHA256) implies when to use it. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, but the sibling names make the differentiation obvious enough for a score of 4 rather than 5.

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