osint_search

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 and discloses almost none of it: nothing about which search backend is queried, rate limits, result freshness, or whether queries leave a trace. The presence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, but a mutation-free yet opaque network tool still warrants more disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the operator syntax is the most useful information to surface first. It is lean to the point of under-specification, but no sentence is wasted.

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 7 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the definition is thinner than the tool's complexity warrants; three parameters and the query syntax are essentially undocumented. The existing output schema removes the need to describe returns, which keeps this from dropping lower.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by mapping operators to parameters: site: to site, filetype: to filetype, intitle: to in_title, and -exclude to exclude_terms. It says nothing about query, time_range (no format given), or max_results (default 5, no cap or behavior noted), and it does not clarify that exclude_terms is an array.

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 verb-plus-resource ('targeted intelligence search / dorking') and lists the boolean operator vocabulary (site:, filetype:, intitle:, -exclude) that defines the tool. That is enough to distinguish it from generic scrapers, but it never contrasts itself with the closer siblings search_web, search_and_scrape, or osint_deep_public_recon.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no alternative tool is named. At best the operator list implies 'use this for advanced dorked queries rather than plain web search', which leaves the agent to infer the routing decision among the many search/recon siblings.

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