osint_investigate_email_start

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

The description discloses async behavior (returns investigationId immediately) and polling workflow. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent. No contradictions, and it adds value 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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded: first describes action, second restriction, third return and workflow. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a tool that just initiates an async investigation, the description covers the start, restriction, and follow-up steps. The output schema likely documents return values, so no need to elaborate further.

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 single parameter 'query' is described as an email address, with context (breach exposure, account correlation). The schema provides min/max length, and the description adds semantic meaning. However, with 0% schema coverage, it could provide more format details, but it's adequate for a simple string.

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 it starts an async OSINT investigation for an email address, specifying breach exposure and account correlation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like osint_investigate_domain_start by focusing on email.

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?

It mentions the restriction to owner/enterprise tier and that people-centric OSINT is restricted. It also instructs to poll with status and report tools. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context and sibling list imply when to use this vs other investigate tools.

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