shodan_host_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds significant behavioral context beyond the input schema. It discloses that results include 'detailed information about discovered hosts including IP addresses, ports, services, and vulnerabilities' and mentions credit usage implications ('Use facets... without burning credits'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior beyond the page parameter.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage, but the extensive examples section (10 ICS examples + 3 patterns) makes it quite lengthy. While all content is relevant, it could be more concise by summarizing example categories rather than listing numerous specific queries. The structure is logical but not maximally efficient.

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 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, practical examples, and behavioral aspects. The main gap is lack of output format details (what the return structure looks like), which would be helpful given no output schema exists. However, the description of return content ('detailed information about discovered hosts...') partially compensates.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds substantial value by providing extensive ICS/SCADA examples and effective patterns that illustrate practical usage of the query parameter beyond the schema's general examples. It explains how to combine filters and use facets for aggregated results, giving semantic context that enhances understanding beyond the schema's technical specifications.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose as 'Search Shodan for hosts matching a query' with specific resources (hosts) and detailed return information (IP addresses, ports, services, vulnerabilities). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like shodan_count (counts), shodan_dns_lookup (DNS resolution), and shodan_host_info (single host details) by focusing on multi-host search with query filtering.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use for asset discovery and reconnaissance' establishes the primary context. It differentiates from alternatives by focusing on host search (vs. shodan_api_info for API status, shodan_exploits_search for exploit data). The extensive ICS/SCADA examples and effective patterns section offer concrete when-to-use scenarios with specific query formulations.

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