shodan_host_info

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 mentions the types of data returned but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. For a tool that likely queries an external API with potential constraints, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second enumerates the returned data. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary verbiage, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the data list into the first sentence.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing return data types. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error handling, and exact response structure. For a tool with two parameters and likely external API dependencies, this leaves gaps in completeness for safe and effective use.

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%, with clear documentation of both parameters (ip and history). The description adds marginal value by implying the 'history' parameter controls historical data inclusion, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific host by IP address', specifying the exact scope of data returned (services, open ports, vulnerabilities, historical data). It distinguishes from siblings like shodan_host_search (which searches rather than targets a specific IP) and shodan_dns_lookup (which focuses on DNS resolution rather than host details).

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 when you need detailed host information for a specific IP, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like shodan_host_search (for broader searches) or shodan_dns_lookup (for DNS queries). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about optimal use cases.

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