osint_investigate_infrastructure_start

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

The description discloses additional behavior beyond annotations: async nature (returns investigationId immediately), polling requirement, and degradation to 'info' when unprovisioned. This adds transparency without contradicting the provided 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?

The description is compact and information-dense, with no unnecessary words. It conveys the core purpose, async behavior, and a key caveat in two sentences.

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 essential aspects: what it does, how to use it (poll for status), and a deployment caveat. It does not detail return structure, but since no output schema is provided and the tool is simple, 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?

The description explains the 'query' parameter as accepting domain, IP, or org, which is not evident from the schema alone (simple string with length constraints). This significantly enriches parameter understanding.

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 deep-infrastructure OSINT investigation for domain, IP, or org queries, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like osint_investigate_domain_start and osint_investigate_username_start.

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 provides guidance on when to use (async, for domain/IP/org) and mentions polling with osint_investigation_status, though it does not explicitly contrast with all alternatives. The 'Operator-deploy only' note adds deployment context.

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