character-osint

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation with potentially incomplete data. The description adds context about what information is returned (character details, corporation history, current status), which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates purpose, input method, and return values. Every element earns its place with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand.

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 read operation with one parameter and good annotations, the description provides adequate context about what information is returned. However, without an output schema, the description could benefit from more detail about the structure or format of the returned data (character details, corporation history, current status).

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'characterName' clearly documented as 'The exact name of the EVE Online character to investigate'. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that investigation is 'by name', but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already states.

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 specific action ('Get OSINT information') and resource ('about an EVE Online character by name'), and distinguishes from sibling tools (character vs alliance/corporation). It specifies the exact scope of information returned: character details, corporation history, and current status.

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 implies when to use this tool (for character investigation by name) and distinguishes it from sibling tools (alliance-osint, corporation-osint) by specifying the target resource. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide alternative scenarios beyond the sibling differentiation.

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