shodan_query_search

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 describes the tool's purpose and use cases but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the 'page' parameter in schema), or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by bullet points for topics and use cases. Every sentence adds value, such as listing example queries and explaining benefits. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the bullet points into prose, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 complexity (a search tool with community queries), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., read-only status, authentication needs) and details on output format. For a tool with these gaps in structured data, the description should compensate more to be fully helpful.

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 ('query' and 'page') with descriptions. The description adds value by providing example query terms (e.g., 'SCADA', 'ICS') and context on what types of queries to search for, but it doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. 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 tool searches for saved Shodan queries shared by the community, which is a specific verb ('search') and resource ('saved Shodan queries'). It distinguishes from siblings like shodan_host_search or shodan_exploits_search by focusing on community queries rather than host data or exploits. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with shodan_query_tags, which might be a related sibling.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: for discovering popular query patterns, learning effective search techniques, and getting ideas for your own queries. It lists specific use cases like learning search patterns and finding vulnerability searches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools.

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