osint_investigate_domain_start

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool is operator-deploy only, degrades to info when unprovisioned, and returns an investigationId immediately (async pattern). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise: two front-loaded sentences. The first covers purpose and constraints, the second gives immediate follow-up steps. Every phrase earns its place with 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description appropriately avoids explaining return values. It covers the async pattern, when to use it (operator-deploy only), and links to status/report tools. However, the phrase 'degrades to info when unprovisioned' is ambiguous and could benefit from clarification.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'query' with no description (0% coverage). The description does not elaborate on the parameter's meaning or format. While the parameter name is intuitive (the domain to investigate), the description should explicitly clarify its role to fully compensate for the missing schema description.

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 identifies the tool as starting an async OSINT investigation for a domain, using specific verbs and resource phrasing. It differentiates from siblings by mentioning operator-deploy restrictions and the async pattern, and provides cross-references to related tools.

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 states it is 'Operator-deploy only' and degrades when unprovisioned, providing clear context. It also explains the follow-up actions (poll with status, retrieve with report). However, it does not explicitly state scenarios where the tool should not be used.

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