osint_investigate_domain_start

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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: async nature, immediate return of investigationId, degradation behavior when unprovisioned. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) are consistent; description provides key details on lifecycle and failure modes.

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 sentences, front-loaded with essential information: purpose, deployment constraint, async pattern, and follow-up tool names. No redundant or extraneous text.

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?

Covers the async workflow and degradation behavior. With output schema present, return format is handled by schema. Could mention prerequisites or error conditions, but for a start tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 description must compensate. It implies the 'query' parameter is a domain, but does not specify format (e.g., FQDN) or provide examples. Minimal additional meaning beyond the schema's type/constraints.

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?

Clearly states it starts an async OSINT investigation for a domain. Differentiates from sibling tools like osint_investigation_status and osint_investigation_report by specifying the async pattern and that it returns an ID. Also distinct from other investigation start tools (e.g., osint_investigate_infrastructure_start, osint_investigate_username_start) via explicit domain focus.

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?

Explicitly states 'Operator-deploy only; degrades to info when unprovisioned,' providing clear context on when to use. Describes the polling workflow (osint_investigation_status/report). No explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the domain specificity and deployment constraint give adequate guidance.

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