Host lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context about the returned data (open ports, banners, products, vulnerabilities) beyond what annotations provide. It does not discuss rate limits or errors, but for a read-only single-IP lookup, the behavioral picture is adequately transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by concrete detail about what the lookup returns. Every sentence provides useful information with 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description effectively explains both the return content (ports, banners, products, vulnerabilities) and the intended use case. No important context is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description ('IPv4 or IPv6 address to look up'). The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter beyond restating 'single IP address', 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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') with a clear resource ('single IP address') and enumerates the data returned (open ports, banners, products/versions, vulnerabilities). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like shodan_search (which searches across many IPs) and shodan_cve_lookup (which focuses on CVEs).

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 a clear usage context ('Use this to check what your own infrastructure exposes'), which implies when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of the highest score.

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