osint_investigate_infrastructure_start

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

Description adds async behavior, immediate return of investigationId, and degradation to info when unprovisioned. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and description complements without contradiction.

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 efficient sentences: first states purpose and query types, second covers deployment constraints and return value. No wasted words, front-loaded with key info.

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 async nature, immediate return, and polling. Though it doesn't detail the investigation scope, the output schema likely provides more. Sufficient for a starter tool given complexity.

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 adds meaning to the 'query' parameter by specifying allowed types (domain, IP, or org), which is absent in the schema (0% coverage). This helps the agent format the input correctly.

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 verb 'Start', the resource 'deep-infrastructure OSINT investigation', and the query types (domain, IP, org). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like osint_investigate_domain_start, providing clear purpose.

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 specifies 'Operator-deploy only' and notes degradation when unprovisioned, giving clear context for use. It also directs polling with osint_investigation_status. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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