osint_investigation_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint: false, so the description doesn't need to restate these. It adds contextual behavior: 'Operator-deploy only' (access restriction) and 'degrades to info when unprovisioned or not yet complete' (fallback behavior). This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful operational insight, earning a 4 despite the annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core action and adds the key edge-case behavior in the second sentence. Every word earns its place, making it highly effective for quick comprehension.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: purpose, input identifier, and degradation behavior when the investigation is incomplete or unprovisioned. It doesn't describe the report structure, but that is not required in the absence of an output schema; the phrase 'final report' is self-explanatory. It could be more complete by suggesting checking status first, but it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 for the single parameter. It only mentions 'by investigationId,' which merely repeats the parameter name without adding meaning (e.g., format, source, or how to obtain a valid ID). Since it doesn't clarify the parameter's value or provide context like 'retrieve from osint_investigation_status,' the description adds minimal semantics.

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's purpose: to retrieve the final report of a completed OSINT investigation, identified by investigationId. It uses a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (final report), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like osint_investigation_status (which checks status) and osint_investigate_*_start (which initiates 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 implies usage context: it is for completed investigations, and mentions 'degrades to info when unprovisioned or not yet complete,' hinting that the user might need to check status first. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like osint_investigation_status or provide clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance. The restriction 'Operator-deploy only' is a usage guideline but not elaborated.

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