shodan_exploits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the API key requirement but does not disclose rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether results are read-only. The description is minimal beyond the requirement.

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 one concise sentence that includes the verb, resource, and a key requirement. It is front-loaded with essential information and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and no output schema, so complexity is low. The description adequately states the primary action and a requirement, but lacks details about the return format, pagination, or that the database contains public exploits. It is sufficient but not complete.

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% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (query and type). The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search', the resource 'Shodan's exploit database', and the result 'public exploits matching a query'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like shodan_search which searches hosts, and shodan_host which retrieves 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 mentions the requirement for SHODAN_API_KEY, which is a necessary usage condition. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., shodan_search for general device searches), nor does it mention when not to use it.

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