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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses passive-only behavior, keyless access, read-only semantics, that it reads Shodan's own scan data rather than probing, and the CDN accuracy limitation. It omits data freshness/staleness and any rate-limit or caching behavior, which would matter for an agent deciding reliability.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and data source, followed by method and the CDN caveat. Every clause carries operational information; nothing is redundant padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is what an agent needs to judge fit. The remaining gap is behavioral detail on data freshness and failure modes, minor for a single-parameter passive lookup.

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 target parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining that for a domain the first resolved IP is used and that CDN-fronted domains yield edge data — behavior an agent cannot glean from the schema string alone.

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 and resource ('Report a host's internet-facing exposure') plus the exact data source (Shodan's InternetDB) and enumerates the returned fields (open ports, CPEs, CVEs, hostnames, tags). This clearly separates it from siblings like ip_reputation, scan_site, and passive_dns, which cover different data or methods.

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?

It gives implied usage context — passive lookup that 'never touches the target' — and a caveat that behind a CDN results reflect the edge, not the origin. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, so the agent must infer the routing itself.

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