invenio_create_search_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: not that this is an asynchronous job start, not that it returns a task handle requiring polling, not whether it costs credits or has rate limits. The word "Start" hints at async but the follow-up contract with invenio_get_search_task is never stated.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is terse rather than bloated; the shortfall is missing content, which is penalized elsewhere, not verbosity here.

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 an async task-creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent is left without the essential lifecycle information: that a task is created and results must be fetched via invenio_get_search_task, and roughly what the task handle looks like. The description is complete on inputs only.

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% and the enum already constrains type to user/email/phone, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of "username, email or phone" loosely maps to those enum values but adds no format, validation, or matching semantics beyond it.

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 ("Start") and resource ("OSINT search") plus the accepted target dimensions (username, email, phone), so the agent knows this initiates an investigation. It does not name or contrast with siblings like invenio_check_email_risk, which occupies adjacent territory for email targets, so differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the target-type list, but nothing says when to pick this over invenio_check_email_risk for an email, or that results must be retrieved via invenio_get_search_task. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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