shodan-ip-lookup

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: passive (no packets sent), returns a structured host result, and includes an authorization warning. However, it doesn't address potential API key requirements or rate limits, a minor gap.

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?

Four sentences front-loaded with purpose, followed by a compact list of returned data and a behavioral note. No redundant phrases except slight repetition of 'Shodan.' Efficient.

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 2-param tool with output schema and full schema param descriptions, this description is sufficiently complete. It covers what data is returned, passive behavior, and authorization. Missing rate-limit/API-key nuances but not critical.

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 covers both params (target and timeout) with 100% coverage. Description doesn't add detail beyond the schema, but none is needed given the schema's clarity. Baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states the tool looks up IP info via Shodan, listing specific data types (ports, services, banners, etc.). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like shodan-internetdb-lookup, so it misses a chance to guide selection.

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?

Provides context that this is passive reconnaissance and only for authorized targets, which implies when to use (assessment). But doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, so it's clear context without explicit alternatives.

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