Expandir entidad (Run All)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it saves results and reports transforms missing due to API keys, which helps an agent anticipate side effects and incomplete coverage.

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 with no wasted text. The Maltego comparison and API-key caveat both add useful context efficiently.

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 an open-world, non-idempotent bulk operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, persistence, and API-key limitations but does not describe the response shape or operational caveats such as time/cost/partial failures. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 every parameter including reason, soft_limit, max_transforms, and response_format is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the 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: run all available transforms that declare the entity's type on a case entity, and save results. The 'todos los transforms' phrasing distinguishes it from the single-transform sibling, but it does not explicitly name osint_run_transform as the alternative.

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 'like Run All in Maltego' comparison and 'all transforms' wording imply this is the bulk-expansion option, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus osint_run_transform or osint_investigate. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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