osint_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It mentions auto-routing and returning 'results with available resources', but does not discuss rate limits, authentication, or any side effects. As a read-only search, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a succinct one-liner, followed by routing details, a list of sources, and practical examples. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the examples are particularly helpful without being excessive.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and source options adequately but leaves gaps: it does not specify return format for results, pagination behavior, or any prerequisites. For a search tool of this complexity, it is moderately complete but could be improved.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds significant value by providing concrete examples that illustrate how parameters like 'query' and 'source' interact, and maps natural language queries to appropriate sources, which aids the agent in parameter selection.

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 clearly states 'Search across 14 OSINT data sources' with a specific verb and resource. The list of sources and examples strongly reinforce the tool's purpose, and it is easily distinguishable from siblings like osint_preview or osint_get.

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 auto-routing and how to use the 'source' parameter for specific connectors, which provides clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., when to use osint_search vs osint_preview), so it loses some points for direct alternatives.

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