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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the operation is async, that it returns an investigationId immediately, that it degrades to info level when unprovisioned, and that it requires operator authorization and watchlist membership. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs and none of them are captured by readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then eligibility constraints, then the return/polling contract. No filler and the most decision-critical information (operator-only, returns ID immediately) 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return value (investigationId) and the exact next tool to call, and it covers the provisioning/authorization edge case. For a single-parameter async-start tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already enumerates the accepted subject types (domain, IP, organisation, email, username) plus length bounds. The description only restates 'for a query' and adds no format or disambiguation guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Start an async supply-chain OSINT investigation for a query.' The 'supply-chain' qualifier is meaningful scope. However, the description never explains how this differs from the many sibling starters (osint_investigate_domain_start, _email_start, _username_start, _infrastructure_start) whose subject types are also listed in the query parameter, leaving the agent to guess which starter to choose.

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?

Gives real preconditions — 'operator-deploy only' and 'targets must be operator-authorized on the recon watchlist' — plus the follow-up step 'poll with osint_investigation_status'. It stops short of stating when to pick this over the type-specific osint_investigate_* siblings, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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