OTInstaller Registry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the returned surface, notably that it exposes API keys, network-access and ethics flags, and the consent class a run is placed in — context that is genuinely useful and not derivable from the structured fields.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler, and the returned contents are front-loaded. It loses a point because the fragmentary construction (no subject/verb) makes it slightly harder to parse than a clean 'Retrieves X' statement.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carrying the full list of return fields is valuable and largely sufficient for a read-only one-parameter lookup. Minor gaps remain: no error behavior, no note on whether versions must exist, and no routing against the search siblings.

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 `tool` parameter already documents the accepted forms (namespace/name or namespace/name@version). The description adds nothing about accepted identifier formats or version-defaulting behavior, so the 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 enumerates the specific contents a caller receives (inputs, outputs, API keys, network access, ethics flags, consent class, run behavior, install/run instructions), which pins down the resource. However, it is a verbless noun fragment that never states what the operation actually does (retrieve/fetch a tool's definition), and it offers no differentiation from the sibling search_tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as search_tools (broad discovery) or list_types. An agent must infer on its own that this is the single-tool lookup versus the search siblings.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema present, the description's disclosure of exactly what comes back — input types, entity types, categories, and the pivot map — meaningfully fills the information gap about return content.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the enumeration is front-loaded. The parenthetical gloss on the pivot map is a minor structural wart but not wasteful.

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 zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description appropriately takes on the job of describing returned content and does so. The only real gap is the absence of usage context relative to its five siblings.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what an empty schema already communicates.

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 enumerates the resource contents (input types, entity types, categories, pivot map), so an agent can infer it is a catalogue-listing tool. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and no attempt to distinguish it from siblings such as get_tool or suggest_pivots, which also concern the pivot map. Purpose is recognizable but not sharply defined.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent must guess whether this is the right call versus get_tool, search_tools, or suggest_pivots. No usage signal is provided at all.

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

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false, non-destructive), so the description's real contribution is disclosure of the payload: Markdown plus the page list plus the tools the page references. That tells the agent what a call yields beyond what annotations provide.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the key fact (Markdown page) is front-loaded. It is slightly telegraphic — the reading action itself is never stated — but there is no wasted text.

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 must describe the return value, and it does: one page in Markdown, the list of pages, and the tools used. Pagination behavior across pages is not mentioned, but for a two-param read tool the coverage is nearly 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 description coverage is 100%, so both guide and page are already documented in the schema, including the page default and the namespace/name@version format. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is acceptable but sets the baseline at 3.

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 names a specific resource (a guide page) and its return format (Markdown), so an agent can tell it apart from search_guides. The verb is implicit rather than stated ('One page of a guide' rather than 'Reads/returns'), and no sibling is named, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus search_guides, list_types, or get_tool, nor any precondition. The only usage-relevant detail — that page defaults to the first page — is carried by the schema, not the description.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what is being searched (investigation guides and their content types), but it does not disclose behavioral details such as result ordering, pagination behavior, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and search facets without any filler. Every phrase contributes useful information, and the structure is immediately clear.

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 full schema description coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining core context: what kind of guides are searched and which facets are available. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning paginated results or the return shape, given there is no output schema, but nothing essential for invoking the tool 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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description maps the searchable facets (words, target type, level) to the relevant parameters, but it does not add syntax, format, or filtering details beyond what the schema provides, and it omits the pagination parameters entirely.

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 states a specific verb (Search) and resource (the registry's investigation guides) and clarifies the resource by listing content types it contains (methods, checklists, references). It implicitly separates the tool from siblings like search_tools and read_guide through the resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from those alternatives.

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 explains how to search guides by words, target type or level, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings such as search_tools, read_guide, or list_types. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The only added behavioral claim is the passive_only paraphrase ('run without asking the person'), which loosely restates the schema's own description and is garbled ('the tools ot runs'). Nothing is said about pagination behavior or what a result set looks like.

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?

Appropriately short and front-loaded with the searchable dimensions, but the second sentence contains a typo ('ot runs') and largely duplicates the schema's passive_only description rather than adding information, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 nine-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers what can be searched but says nothing about the returned result shape or paging workflow (limit/cursor), which an agent must know from the schema alone. Adequate but with a clear 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% with all nine parameters documented, so the schema carries the semantics. The description names only a subset of the dimensions (words, input type, entity type, category, passive_only) and adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides; 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 (search) and resource (the registry's OSINT tools) and enumerates the searchable facets: words, input type, entity type, and category. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like search_guides or list_types, so it stops short of a 5.

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 enumeration of searchable facets implies how to use the tool (which filter dimensions are available), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to search_guides for the parallel guide-search case or list_types for enumerating valid input types.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results are ordered 'best first', a meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations, but it does not explain the ranking criteria or return format, so it only partially extends what the annotations provide.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the input condition front-loaded and no filler. The fragment structure ('For entity types..., the tools...') is slightly less clear than a complete verb-led sentence, but the size is appropriate.

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 required param and no output schema, and the description explains conceptually what is returned. However, it does not specify the return structure or ranking basis, nor does it mention alternatives, leaving some gaps for an agent that must consume and act on the suggestions.

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%, so the schema already defines entity_types and its constraint as list_types output. The description adds concrete examples (subdomain, account, email) and the 'found so far' context, giving meaning beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 identifies the input (entity types discovered) and the output (tools that accept them, ranked best first), which is a specific mapping task. It does not explicitly name the verb 'suggest' or state that it returns a ranked list, but the resource and scope are clear enough to distinguish it from list_types and search_tools.

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 phrase 'For entity types found so far' implies the tool should be used after entity types have been discovered, but it never states when to choose this over search_tools or list_types, nor any when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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