investigate_multi

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: parallel execution, report generation, max targets, API key requirement, authorization, and passive nature. This leaves no ambiguity about tool behavior.

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 concise with key information front-loaded. It covers essential aspects in 5 sentences without fluff, though a slightly more structured format could improve scanning.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers limitations, requirements, ethical use, and scope. It provides sufficient context for an agent to decide invocation.

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% for the single 'targets' parameter, which already lists item types and max. The description adds context about authorization and passive collection but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning 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 investigates multiple targets in parallel using the full OSINT tool chain, producing per-target and summary reports. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that are single-target or single-source searches.

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 specifies maximum 10 targets, requirement for ANTHROPIC_API_KEY, authorized use only, and passive public-source collection. It provides clear context for when to use, though does not explicitly exclude alternatives.

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