osint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists six techniques but does not explain whether the tool is read-only, has rate limits, requires authentication, or what side effects (if any) occur. The return format is not described.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's functionality without redundant information. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain the return format or structure of results for the six techniques. It fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect from the call.

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 coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the 'type' parameter is auto-detected if omitted, which is not in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the 'target' parameter beyond schema.

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 as OSINT enrichment with a specific list of techniques (Shodan, Censys, etc.) and targets (IP/domain). It distinguishes itself from sibling scanning tools by focusing on external intelligence gathering rather than active scanning.

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 auto-detection of target type but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recon' or 'scan_ports'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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