osint_investigation_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: operator-deploy only, targets must be operator-authorized on the recon watchlist, and graceful degradation to 'info' when unprovisioned. A hidden constraint worth surfacing.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero filler, front-loaded action first and constraints/return values after. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the return shape (status enum running|completed|failed plus progress metadata) and states provisioning/auth constraints. The main remaining gap is that it doesn't explain how to obtain investigationId, which is the one thing an agent needs before calling.

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% for the single investigationId parameter, so the description had room to compensate. It only restates the parameter name ('by investigationId') without saying where the id originates (e.g., returned by an osint_investigate_*_start call) or its accepted format, leaving semantics underexplained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Poll the status of an OSINT investigation by investigationId.' That clearly separates it from osint_investigate_*_start (which launch) and osint_investigation_report (which retrieves results), even though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Poll the status' implies iterative checking after a start call, and the operator-deploy/ watchlist-authorization prerequisites set context. However, it never states when to prefer this over osint_investigation_report or what to do when status is failed, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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