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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: an authorization requirement, a graceful-degradation mode when unprovisioned, and the terminal state set. It does not describe polling cadence or terminal-state handling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 and selector are front-loaded in the first sentence, with constraints after. It is dense and largely waste-free, though the semicolon-chained constraints read as a compressed list rather than cleanly separated guidance.

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 compensates by naming the return values (running | completed | failed) and noting progress metadata, plus the degradation behavior. An agent has enough to call and interpret it, though a note on terminal-state polling behavior would close the 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents its origin and length bounds. The description only restates that the ID is the lookup key, adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema; 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 ('Poll the status of an OSINT investigation') plus the key selector (investigationId). It is clearly differentiable from the sibling osint_investigate_*_start tools (which launch jobs) and osint_investigation_report (which fetches results).

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 explicit preconditions: operator-deploy only, targets must be operator-authorized on the recon watchlist, and behavior degrades to info when unprovisioned. It stops short of an explicit 'call this after osint_investigate_*_start returns an ID' routing sentence, though the schema's parameter description implies it.

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