osint_investigate_supply_chain_start

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: async behavior (returns immediately), operator-deploy restriction, degradation to info when unprovisioned, and the polling mechanism. This goes beyond 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, operational constraint, and return/polling behavior. No fluff, front-loaded with the core action.

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 single-parameter async start tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: async nature, provisioning constraint, and how to retrieve results. It could mention what the investigation covers (supply-chain scope is implied but not detailed), but given the simplicity, this is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'query' implicitly but doesn't explain what a good query looks like, format constraints, or examples. The single parameter is simple (string, 1-253 chars), so the gap is moderate, but the description could add more guidance on query formulation.

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 supply-chain OSINT investigation for a query, with a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('supply-chain OSINT investigation'). It distinguishes from siblings by naming the async pattern and the companion polling tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other osint_investigate_*_start 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 provides clear usage context: it's operator-deploy only, degrades to info when unprovisioned, and returns an investigationId to poll with osint_investigation_status. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the async pattern and polling instruction give adequate guidance.

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