host_intel

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

No annotations, so description carries burden. Discloses passive behavior, two modes (free InternetDB vs full API if key configured). Could mention rate limits or data freshness, but covers key points.

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?

Two short paragraphs, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with main action.

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?

No output schema, so description should describe return values. It lists some free InternetDB data (ports, hostnames, etc.) but could explicitly state output format. Still complete enough for a simple lookup tool.

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?

Only one parameter 'ip' with 0% schema coverage. Description context implies the parameter is an IP address. No format details (IPv4/IPv6, CIDR), but purpose makes it clear. Adequate given simplicity, but schema coverage gap warrants slight deduction.

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?

Description clearly states 'Look up an IP's exposure via Shodan.' The verb 'look up' and resource 'IP's exposure' are specific. Distinguishes from siblings like 'port_scan' (active) and 'dns_lookup' (DNS records) by specifying Shodan as the source.

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?

Describes when to use: passive reconnaissance via Shodan. Mentions it is passive and queries Shodan, not the target, implying use case. Does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but context from sibling names provides differentiation.

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