cpe_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination support and the ability to return full details or just counts, which adds useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it does not cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format details, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second adds key features (pagination and output options), and the third provides usage context. Each sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers core functionality and some behavioral aspects but lacks details on response format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. It is adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps in providing a complete operational context.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose ('Search for CPE entries by product name') and the utility ('Useful for identifying specific versions and configurations'), which provides semantic context beyond the schema's technical details. Since no parameters are left undocumented, this exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 specific action ('Search for Common Platform Enumeration entries by product name'), identifies the resource ('in Shodan's CVEDB'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on CPE lookup rather than CVE lookup or other Shodan functions. It explicitly mentions what it returns ('full CPE details or just the total count'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 context ('Useful for identifying specific versions and configurations of software and hardware') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cve_lookup' or 'cves_by_product'. It mentions pagination and count options, which provide some guidance on functionality, but lacks direct comparisons or exclusions for sibling tools.

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