Memoria y cronología del caso o del sujeto

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by naming the concrete data sources (whois.created, breach.date, github.created_at) and disclosing that subject mode computes temporal anomalies — genuinely useful behavioral context. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination or the shape of the returned events.

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?

Two dense sentences, each front-loaded with its mode label, so an agent can scan for the mode it needs. No filler, though the second sentence packs several ideas (sources, timeline, anomaly detection) into one long clause.

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 read-only, six-parameter tool with full schema descriptions, the description conveys what each mode produces and where the dates come from. With no output schema defined, a short note on the returned event structure or ordering would have closed 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%, so every parameter including the mode enum, limit bounds, case_id format and entity_id scoping is already documented in the schema. The description only reiterates mode semantics and ties since_seq to the investigation mode, adding little beyond the structured fields — baseline 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?

State clearly what each mode returns: procedural memory of executed steps versus a behavioral/vital timeline built from entity dates with anomaly (de-confliction) detection. The distinction between the two modes is explicit. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearest sibling, osint_get_case_summary, which an agent could plausibly confuse with the investigation mode.

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 mode semantics imply when each variant applies, and 'con since_seq' hints at incremental polling, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over osint_get_case_summary or osint_suggest_next_steps, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage must be inferred rather than read.

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