Investigate an entity and the ring around it

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it discloses key behaviors: cross-operator reputation scope, event retrieval, the one-identifier requirement, and quota costs. However, it does not mention what happens if multiple identifiers are supplied, nor does it clarify the relationship between 'every recent event' and the 'limit' parameter, which is a slight transparency gap.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core benefit. The first sentence is long but information-dense, and every clause serves a purpose. It is not overly verbose, though it could be split for readability.

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?

The description covers purpose, identifier types, expected outputs (reputation, events), and quota costs. Given no output schema and no annotations, it is reasonably complete for a complex investigation tool, but it omits return format details, error handling, and the exact role of the limit parameter relative to 'every recent event'.

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 only 25% (only limit has a description). The description compensates by explaining that email, ip, and device_id are mutually exclusive entity identifiers and that device_id lookups are free. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though it lacks format details or explicit behavior when multiple identifiers are passed.

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 the tool's purpose: it enriches an entity, provides reputation across a cross-operator abuse network, and returns recent events to uncover fraud rings. It uses a strong verb-resource pairing ('Returns enrichment for the entity, its reputation... and every recent event') and differentiates from sibling tools like check_email or list_events by emphasizing the investigation use case.

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 gives explicit usage constraints ('Supply exactly one of email, ip or device_id') and mentions quota implications. It implies when to use this tool ('what a fraud analyst actually wants') but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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