osint_investigation_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the 'degrades to info' behavior under unprovisioned/incomplete conditions, providing context beyond 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 two sentences: first states the core action, second adds critical constraints. No unnecessary words; front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with one parameter and existing output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, and fallback. Minor gap: could hint how to obtain the investigationId (e.g., from OSINT start tools), but overall adequate.

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%, yet the description does not add semantic detail for 'investigationId' (e.g., format, source). It only repeats the parameter name, failing to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 retrieves the final report of a completed OSINT investigation by ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'osint_investigation_status' and 'brand_audit_get_report' by focusing on retrieval of completed investigation reports.

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 context: 'Operator-deploy only; degrades to info when unprovisioned or not yet complete.' This tells when to use (deployed, complete) and implies when not to use (unprovisioned or incomplete), but does not explicitly name alternatives like the status tool for checking completeness.

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