shodan-cve-lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the endpoint is free and does not require a paid API key, which is relevant behavioral info. It also lists the types of data returned. However, it does not mention rate limits, error handling, or any side effects, though for a read-only lookup this is less critical.

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 concise, approximately three sentences, and front-loads the purpose. The 'Returns: CveResult...' line is somewhat redundant given the output schema and the earlier mention of return fields, but the overall structure is efficient and readable.

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 simple lookup tool with an output schema and well-documented parameters, the description is adequately complete. It states the function, output contents, and cost/auth status. Missing details like rate limits are not critical for this tool, but their absence prevents a perfect score.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not explain parameters beyond the schema, but the schema already documents cve_id with an example and timeout with default and max. The description adds value by stating what the returned data contains, but not parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema.

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's verb and resource: 'Look up CVE details from Shodan's vulnerability database.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like shodan-search-cves (which searches CVEs) by focusing on lookup of a specific CVE ID. The return fields (CVSS, EPSS, references, CPEs) further specify the purpose.

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 have a specific CVE identifier to look up, especially since the schema requires 'cve_id'. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives from the sibling list. The note that it's free and does not require an API key is a useful context but not a direct usage guideline.

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