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

With no annotations, the description is the sole behavioral source. It discloses the data types returned (ports, CPEs, tags, CVEs) but omits limitations such as whether the host must be public, indexed by Shodan, or if there are rate limits or authentication needs. It also doesn't mention error behavior or response format beyond the output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and easily scannable.

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?

Despite having a single input and an output schema, the description is too terse. It doesn't specify input format (IP vs domain), supported host types, or any constraints, leaving an agent uncertain about how to use it correctly. The output schema exists, but the input ambiguity is a significant gap for a tool in a large security-focused set.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'q' with 0% coverage, and the description never explicitly maps 'q' to the 'host' it mentions. While the phrase 'for a host' hints at the input, it doesn't clarify whether 'q' should be an IP, domain, or other identifier, nor the expected format. This ambiguity undermines correct invocation.

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 queries a host and returns open ports, CPEs, tags, and known CVEs, which is a specific and actionable purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'portscan' or 'cve' that might overlap, so an agent might not know this is a one-stop host summary.

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 usage for host intelligence but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like 'portscan' or 'cvedetail'. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing hints, leaving the agent to infer context.

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