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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a deployment restriction, an authorization precondition on the target, and a documented fallback ('degrades to info') when the investigation is not ready.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the retrieval action and its key are front-loaded, and the constraints follow. Nothing is redundant.

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 report-fetching tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation prerequisites and the degraded case but says nothing about what the report contains or how large/structured it is. It is adequate, not complete, for a tool whose return value is undefined elsewhere.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single parameter, and it does no more than restate the field name ('by investigationId'). It does not say where the ID originates (e.g. from an osint_investigate_*_start call) or what form it takes, leaving the parameter under-explained.

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: retrieve the final report of a completed OSINT investigation, keyed by investigationId. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling osint_investigation_status by the word 'final report', though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives real preconditions (operator-deploy only, target must be operator-authorized on the recon watchlist) and notes the degraded outcome when unprovisioned or incomplete. However, it never tells the agent to check osint_investigation_status first or otherwise routes between the two investigation tools, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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