investigate_multi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses parallel execution, per-target report files plus a summary report, the 10-target cap, the ANTHROPIC_API_KEY requirement, a shared tool-call cap per agent, and passive-by-default behavior unless active is enabled. Gaps remain around failure handling and cost, keeping it short of a 5.

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 front-loaded with the core action and packs behavioral detail into a compact block. The stray '[inherits]' token and the dense final sentence slightly reduce readability.

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 parallel orchestrator with no output schema, the description adequately covers outputs (per-target reports plus a summary), execution model, limits, and auth. Only error/failure behavior for individual targets is left unaddressed.

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% for the single targets parameter, and the description's 'Maximum 10 targets' merely restates the schema's 'Max 10.' No additional syntax or format meaning is added, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (investigate), resource (multiple targets), and mode (parallel, full OSINT tool chain), which cleanly separates it from the single-target search_* and graph_* siblings. An agent can tell this is the batch orchestrator without opening the schema.

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 'Maximum 10 targets' constraint implies batch usage, but the description never states when to prefer this over the granular search_* siblings or when not to use it (e.g., single-target cases). Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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