maltego_investigate_email

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

The description discloses that it adds an entity, expands the graph, and performs network-dependent checks, aligning with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). It references shared behavior in another tool for full details, which slightly reduces transparency but still provides solid insight into behavior 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 well-structured with an overview sentence, an Args section, and a Returns line. It is concise (about 6 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every part adds value, including the cross-reference to the domain tool.

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 complexity (orchestration tool with multiple steps) and the presence of an output schema (return string), the description covers inputs, behavior, and what to expect. It wisely defers to maltego_investigate_domain for detailed shared behavior, which is acceptable but leaves some details indirect.

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?

Despite the 0% schema coverage signal, the description includes an Args section explaining each parameter (value, allow_network, max_rounds) with clear, contextual explanations that add value beyond the schema's own descriptions. For example, it clarifies network transforms and expansion depth.

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 it investigates an email address, deriving domain, checking breaches, and expanding footprint. It references maltego_investigate_domain for shared behavior, distinguishing its specific focus from sibling tools like maltego_investigate_domain and maltego_investigate_ip.

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 indicates its specific purpose for email investigation and directs to the domain tool for shared behavior, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like the general maltego_investigate. Implicit guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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