maltego_investigate_domain

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

The description discloses significant behavioral traits beyond annotations: it ensures an active graph, adds entities, runs transforms with deduplication, allows network/offline modes, sets expansion depth limits, and notes skipped transforms for missing API keys. No contradiction with 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 well-structured with a clear opening, bullet-like argument list, and return value section. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 orchestration nature and output schema, the description covers input, behavior, output summary, and limitations (missing API keys). It is complete without needing to explain return values due to output schema existence.

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?

Although the input schema already describes parameters, the description adds context (e.g., 'breadth-first' for max_rounds, 'offline/passive parse-only run' for allow_network) that enhances understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 action ('Automatically investigate a domain') and resource (domain), distinguishing it from sibling tools like maltego_investigate_email and maltego_investigate_ip. It specifies the one-call workflow of adding a domain entity and running transforms.

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 recommends this tool 'instead of chaining transforms manually', providing clear usage context. It implies when to use for automated investigation versus fine-grained control, though it does not explicitly list all alternatives.

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