osint_deep_public_recon

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at confidence scoring and 'negative exclusions', which is genuine added context, but it omits the operationally important facts: that this fans out over 25+ platforms (cost/latency), that scrape_top_profiles triggers live scraping side effects, and any rate-limit or permission considerations.

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 short and front-loaded, which is good, but the leading 'Ultra-Precision Public Intelligence Dossier Tool:' label is a redundant title restating the tool name. The remaining two clauses are dense but mostly carry information rather than fluff.

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?

An 11-parameter, fan-out recon tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations needs a substantially richer definition. The presence of an output schema removes the need to document return values, but the absence of guidance on parameter usage, scraping behavior, and sibling routing leaves the definition inadequate for correct invocation.

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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It obliquely references only three of them ('negative exclusions' for exclude_terms, 'PIN/Street drill-down' for postal_code and street_or_locality), leaving name, location, time_range, organization, role_or_keywords, must_include_terms, scrape_top_profiles, and max_sources_to_scrape completely unexplained.

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 does state a verb and resource ('scrapes and correlates open web data across 25+ platforms') and implies a person-centric dossier built from a required 'name'. However, it never distinguishes this from close siblings such as osint_search, osint_username_check, or osint_location_entity_search, and the 'Ultra-Precision Public Intelligence Dossier' framing is marketing rather than scope definition.

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 at all: nothing tells the agent whether to reach for this instead of osint_search, osint_domain_recon, or a plain search_and_scrape. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no note on when a narrower sibling tool would be cheaper or more appropriate.

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