shodan-list-facets

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

The description discloses the API key requirement and the return type (SearchFacetsResult), but doesn't elaborate on error handling, rate limits, or side effects—though none are apparent for a read-only list operation. With no annotations, there is some burden to explain behavior, but the simplicity of the operation keeps the score at a moderate level.

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 well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, usage context, a requirement, and a return type. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and low complexity, the description provides sufficient context: it names the tool's purpose, how it fits with sibling tools, the API key prerequisite, and the return type. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional parameter (timeout), including its default and range. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function: 'List available search facets for Shodan queries.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like shodan-list-filters and shodan-list-ports by focusing on facets with concrete examples (country, org, port).

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 suggests using facets with shodan-search-count for result distribution analysis, providing a clear context for use. It also notes the API key requirement, which is a useful prerequisite. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple list tool.

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