investigate

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits on its own. It includes '@slow' as a warning about latency and mentions 'deep-dive', implying heavy processing. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, the data sources accessed, or any rate limits, leaving behavioral transparency incomplete.

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 exceptionally concise: a one-sentence summary followed by a short list of example queries. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every element—including the '@slow' note and examples—earns its place without redundancy or filler.

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 tool's complexity (12 parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It clearly explains the tool's scope, provides realistic usage examples, and flags latency. It lacks any mention of edge cases or limitations beyond slowness, but the detailed schema and output schema compensate for most gaps, meriting a 4.

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%, with all 12 parameters already having detailed descriptions in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb ('Deep-dive investigation') and resource ('any security topic'), listing concrete examples like CVEs, threat actors, assets, and endpoint events. It also includes example queries that distinguish it from sibling tools (e.g., 'assess_risk', 'reports') by emphasizing broad investigation over focused assessment or reporting.

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 'USE WHEN' section provides explicit example queries for when to invoke the tool, such as 'tell me about CVE-2024-3400' and 'are we exposed to Lazarus Group?'. This gives clear context on suitable scenarios, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, preventing a score of 5.

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