shodan-dns-reverse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the API key requirement and the return type, which are useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention rate limits, error conditions, or side effects. The safety profile is implied but not stated.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a single use-case sentence, a prerequisite, and a returns line. No filler or redundant content; every line earns its place.

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 simple tool and full schema coverage, the description is almost complete. It covers purpose, use case, API key requirement, and return type. The output schema already documents the result structure, so the 'Returns' line is a helpful confirmation rather than a necessity. Missing details like rate limits or error handling are minor for a DNS 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level context beyond the schema. The schema already explains the 'ips' format (comma-separated, maximum 100) and the 'timeout' default/maximum. The description's mention of 'IP-to-hostnames mappings' is a high-level outcome rather than parameter semantics.

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 opens with 'Reverse DNS lookup — find hostnames for IP addresses', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly defines the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'shodan-dns-resolve' (likely forward DNS) by explicitly saying 'reverse' and explaining the IP-to-hostname direction.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful for identifying what domains are hosted on specific IPs.' This tells the agent when to apply the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The reverse DNS framing implicitly contrasts with forward DNS siblings.

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