shodan-search-cpes

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool is free and requires no API key, which is a behavioral trait. It also indicates the return type (CpeSearchResult). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, data freshness, or any caveats about matching behavior. The non-destructive nature is implied by 'Search' but not explicitly stated. This is adequate but not rich.

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 brief, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence earns its place: purpose, use case, free/no-key note, and return type. There's no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with 4 parameters, all covered by the schema, and an output schema explaining the return structure. The description adds context (free, use case) and is complete enough for an agent to decide to invoke. It doesn't need to explain return values because the output schema exists.

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 schema already documents all parameters with descriptions and examples. The description's phrase 'by product name' aligns with the 'product' parameter but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. According to the rubric, high schema coverage warrants a baseline of 3, and the description doesn't exceed that baseline.

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: 'Search CPE (Common Platform Enumeration) identifiers by product name.' It specifies the resource (CPE identifiers) and the filter (product name), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it's for finding exact CPE strings for vulnerability lookups.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Useful for finding exact CPE strings to use in vulnerability lookups.' This implies when to use the tool, and the sibling comparison (e.g., shodan-search-cves) reinforces its niche for CPEs rather than CVEs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, which would merit a 5.

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