shodan_dns_reverse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a 'lookup', implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns partial results on errors, or details the output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's 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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output expectations. While it meets the minimum for a simple lookup tool, it does not provide a complete picture for effective agent use without additional 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'ips' parameter fully documented in the schema as an array of IP addresses. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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: 'Reverse DNS lookup to find hostnames associated with IP addresses.' It specifies the verb ('lookup'), resource ('hostnames'), and target ('IP addresses'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'shodan_dns_lookup', which likely performs forward DNS lookups, leaving some room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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. It lacks explicit instructions on when to choose it over siblings such as 'shodan_dns_lookup' or other DNS-related tools, and does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This absence of contextual usage information limits its helpfulness for an AI agent.

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