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

Annotations already identify this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, open-world read, so the description wisely adds higher-value context instead of repeating them. It discloses deployment constraints, authorization requirements, degradation behavior, and the special deep_infrastructure composition of discover_subdomains as a cached CT sample under ctDiscovery, explicitly noting it is never an inventory.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the deep_infrastructure special case and then the operational constraints. It is dense but every sentence adds material information with no repetition or 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?

Given the annotations and schema, the description covers prerequisites, degradation behavior, and a non-obvious report-composition detail well enough to invoke correctly. Because there is no output schema, it could still say more about the report's structure or contents, which is the main remaining gap.

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 input schema already states that investigationId is returned by an osint_investigate_*_start tool. The description restates the parameter name but adds no format, length, or validation details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: retrieve the final report of a completed OSINT investigation by investigationId. The word 'completed' and phrase 'final report' distinguish it from sibling start/status tools, which manage initiation and progress rather than finished output.

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 clearly states the tool is for completed investigations and adds operational prerequisites: operator-deploy only and targets must be operator-authorized on the recon watchlist. It also explains graceful degradation when unprovisioned or not yet complete, but it does not explicitly point to osint_investigation_status as the tool for checking progress.

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