osint_investigation_status

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds extra detail not in annotations, such as the 'degrades to info when unprovisioned' behavior and that it returns progress metadata. This goes beyond the basic annotations and provides useful behavioral context.

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 concise sentences with no unnecessary elaboration. It efficiently communicates the core action, key input, and expected output, adhering to the principle of minimal but sufficient 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?

For a simple status-polling tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the input, the action, the return values (status and progress metadata), and even an edge case ('degrades to info'). No critical behavior is omitted for a tool of this 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?

The schema fully specifies the only parameter (investigationId) with type and length constraints, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description merely restates 'by investigationId' without adding semantic meaning (e.g., where the ID comes from or its format). Thus, it adds little beyond the schema, warranting a baseline score.

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: 'Poll the status of an OSINT investigation by investigationId.' It uses a specific verb ('poll'), names the resource ('status of an OSINT investigation'), and identifies the key identifier. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like osint_investigate_domain_start by focusing on status retrieval rather than initiation.

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 some usage constraints (e.g., 'Operator-deploy only') and hints at behavior ('degrades to info when unprovisioned'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool relative to starting an investigation or polling other resources, though the 'investigationId' parameter implies it should be used after a start operation.

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