osint_investigation_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds 'Operator-deploy only' and 'degrades to info when unprovisioned or not yet complete', revealing important conditions and side effects beyond annotations. No 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the core action and constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, constraints (operator-only, degradation), and the key parameter. An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. For a simple retrieval tool, this is 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?

The only parameter, investigationId, has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not elaborate on its format, origin, or usage. For a simple string parameter, the name is partially self-explanatory, but additional context (e.g., where to get the ID) would help.

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 'Retrieve' and the resource 'final report of a completed OSINT investigation' with the identifier 'investigationId'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., osint_investigation_status) by focusing on the final report.

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 explicitly says 'Operator-deploy only', indicating who should use it. It also describes behavior when the investigation is unprovisioned or incomplete. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use an alternative or check prerequisites like status first.

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