shodan_ip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load: it correctly discloses that no API key is required, which is genuinely useful for invocation planning, and the read-only nature is evident from 'lookup'. It omits however rate limits, data freshness (InternetDB is a periodic snapshot rather than live scan), and behavior for unknown/unroutable addresses.

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?

Two short clauses, resource and return fields front-loaded, with the auth caveat trailing. Every element earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and for a one-parameter lookup the definition covers the essentials. The remaining gap is operational context — snapshot freshness and failure behavior — which matters somewhat for an enrichment tool but does not block correct 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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does partially by constraining the single parameter to 'one IPv4 address', ruling out IPv6, DNS names, and ranges. It stops short of stating format expectations like dotted-quad or what happens with a malformed value.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (Shodan InternetDB lookup) and enumerates the three returned data classes (ports, vulns, hostnames), which tells an agent exactly what this yields. It is clearly distinct from the sibling reconnaissance tools, though it doesn't clarify how InternetDB differs from a full Shodan host lookup.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it has a single IPv4 indicator and wants exposure data. The phrase 'for one IPv4 address' implicitly excludes CIDR ranges, IPv6, and hostnames, but no alternative tool or when-not condition is named.

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