osint_investigate_username_start

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

Annotations already indicate openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds crucial behavioral details: the tool is asynchronous and returns an investigationId immediately while the investigation runs in the background. It also discloses access restrictions (owner/enterprise tier). This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not describe edge cases like authorization failures or rate limits.

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 three sentences, each with a clear role: purpose, restriction, and workflow. It is front-loaded with the main action, avoids filler, and every sentence contributes essential information.

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 simple starter tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the full workflow: what it does, the access restriction, and the follow-up steps (poll and retrieve). It does not detail report contents, but that is handled by the report tool. Minor missing details like rate limits or concurrent investigations, but not critical for this async starter.

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?

With a single parameter (query) and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies that the query is a username for investigation, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not specify format details (e.g., case sensitivity, whether '@' is needed) or confirm it accepts only one username. It suffices but is not exhaustive.

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' and the resource 'async OSINT investigation for a username', and it specifies the scope (cross-platform presence, breach correlation). This distinguishes it from sibling starters like osint_investigate_email_start or osint_investigate_domain_start by explicitly focusing on username investigations.

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 usage context by stating that this is owner/enterprise tier only and that people-centric OSINT is restricted to prevent misuse. It also explains the async workflow: returns an investigationId immediately, poll with status and retrieve with report. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative investigation starters (e.g., email, domain), though this is implied by the username focus.

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