osint_investigation_status

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

Annotations already indicate safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about degrading to info when unprovisioned and specifies return types, going 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, front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant information; every word adds value.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description usefully lists possible statuses and mentions progress metadata. Minor omission: behavior when investigationId is invalid is not explicitly stated, though 'degrades to info' hints at graceful handling.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter investigationId. The description merely references 'by investigationId' without providing format, examples, or constraints beyond schema 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 polls the status of an OSINT investigation by investigationId, distinguishing it from sibling tools like osint_investigation_report and the various start tools.

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 mentions 'Operator-deploy only' and 'degrades to info when unprovisioned', providing some usage constraints, but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus alternatives like osint_investigation_report.

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