osint_investigate_username_start

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly, openWorldHint true, not idempotent, not destructive. The description adds context: it's async, returns an investigationId, and requires polling. It also mentions the tier restriction. No contradictions with 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 succinct, consisting of two clear sentences that front-load the purpose and restriction, then explain the async flow and follow-up tools.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and sibling tools for status/report, the description adequately explains the workflow (start, poll, retrieve) and the tier restriction. It could mention error conditions or rate limits but is sufficient for an async start tool.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by stating the parameter is a 'username' and that investigation covers cross-platform presence and breach correlation. However, it does not specify format or constraints beyond the schema's min/max length.

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 OSINT investigation for a username, focusing on cross-platform presence and breach correlation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like osint_investigate_domain_start by specifying the username scope.

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 when to use (username investigation) and that it's restricted to owner/enterprise tier. It also instructs to poll with osint_investigation_status and retrieve results with osint_investigation_report. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.

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