shodan_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what information is returned (services, vulnerabilities, geographic distribution, country-based statistics) but doesn't address rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description provides some output context but misses key operational details.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences that each add value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details, and ending with capabilities. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

For a search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and what information it returns. However, it lacks details about authentication, rate limits, and differentiation from sibling tools, which would be valuable given the server has multiple related lookup tools.

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 already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain query syntax, advanced filter formats, or provide examples of valid queries.

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 searches Shodan's database for internet-connected devices and returns detailed information about them. It specifies the resource (Shodan's database) and verb (search), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ip_lookup' or 'dns_lookup' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 mentions 'advanced search filters' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ip_lookup' or 'cve_lookup'. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings.

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