shodan-search-cves

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 effectively discloses that the tool is free, requires no API key, and returns a specific result type (CveSearchResult) with a total count. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but for a read-only search tool this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 core purpose in the first sentence. It includes useful additional details like the cost/free note and a return type line, but the return line is somewhat redundant given the existence of an output schema, so it could be slightly tighter.

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 description covers the main functionality, key filter options, and the cost/auth status, which is adequate for a search-oriented tool. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools (e.g., when to use this versus shodan-search), and does not mention any usage limits or background behavior, leaving some gaps in contextual guidance.

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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly naming the key filters (CISA KEV, EPSS, date range) which map to is_kev, sort_by_epss, and start_date/end_date, thus reinforcing their semantic meaning beyond just the parameter names.

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 'Search CVEs in Shodan's vulnerability database with powerful filters' and mentions specific capabilities like filtering by CISA KEV, sorting by EPSS, and date ranges. This distinct verb+resource combination differentiates it from sibling tools such as shodan-cve-lookup, which likely focuses on individual CVE lookup.

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 clear context by highlighting the tool's filtering strengths and explicitly noting it is free with no API key, which helps agents decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like shodan-search or shodan-cve-lookup, nor does it state when not to use the tool.

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