osint_investigate_domain_start

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (it starts an investigation, so mutates state), openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which align. The description adds async behavior and the 'degrades to info when unprovisioned' condition, which is useful beyond annotations.

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: first states purpose and async nature, second gives degradation condition and points to the status and report tools. Every word is functional; no redundancy.

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 tool is a start operation, so the description covers async initiation bees. It mentions the follow-up tools for status and report. Given no output schema lowering the burden, and the simple interface (one param), the description is sufficient. Could mention auth or rate limits, but not critical for Ops tool. Slightly below perfect because 'operators-only' behavior is vague.

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%. The description implies the query is the domain, but does not elaborate on format, constraints, or examples. With only one parameter of type string, it's minimal, but the description could have clarified expected input more thoroughly. Since schema provides constraints (min/max length), the description adds little beyond the tool name.

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 starts an async OSINT investigation for a domain, using a specific verb ('start') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like the status and report retrieval tools by mentioning polling and retrieval.

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?

Provides guidance to poll with osint_investigation_status and retrieve with osint_investigation_report, and notes it is operator-deploy only. Does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tools make the workflow clear. Missing explicit 'when not to use' but adequate.

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