shodan-internetdb-lookup

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 clearly describes what the tool returns, that it's free, and that it's faster but less detailed than the alternative. While it does not discuss error handling, rate limits, or explicit read-only nature, it provides substantial transparency for a simple lookup operation.

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 and front-loaded, with the key purpose in the first sentence. However, the final 'Returns: InternetDbResult with quick IP intelligence data' is somewhat redundant with the earlier 'Returns open ports...' sentence. It is still efficient overall, but could be tightened by removing repetition.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, return data, cost (free), speed tradeoff, alternative tool, and output type. The output schema handles return structure, so no additional explanation is needed. The description is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only mentions the output data. The schema already fully documents 'ip' and 'timeout', so the description adds no additional semantic value for parameters.

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 performs a quick IP intelligence lookup returning open ports, vulnerabilities, hostnames, CPEs, and tags. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'shodan-ip-lookup' by noting it's faster but less detailed. The verb 'Returns' and resource 'Shodan's InternetDB' make the purpose explicit.

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 explicitly names an alternative tool ('shodan-ip-lookup') and provides a comparison ('Faster but less detailed'), giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative. It also states it's free and requires no API key, which helps the agent decide based on constraints.

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