shodan_dns_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 describes the basic function but lacks critical details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool interacting with an external API like Shodan, this omission is significant and could lead to misuse.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and understand the core purpose.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., IP addresses, error messages), how results are structured, or any behavioral nuances like pagination or rate limiting. This leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly in a real-world 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'hostnames' parameter clearly documented as an array of strings. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid hostnames or constraints on the array size. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Perform DNS lookups') and resource ('domain names to IP addresses'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'shodan_dns_reverse', which likely performs reverse DNS lookups, leaving some ambiguity about when to use each tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'shodan_dns_reverse' or other DNS-related tools. It states what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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