Search Shodan

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already discloses the read-only nature. The description adds valuable query syntax examples and a scale hint, but does not detail pagination behavior, rate limits, or output format. With annotations present, this is adequate but not deeply 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and examples, then a succinct use case. No redundant or vague wording; every word contributes.

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 search tool with 2 simple parameters and a read-only annotation, the description covers the essential query syntax and intended broad use. It omits mention of the return structure, but that is not critical for shaping the query, and pagination is captured in the schema. A small gap prevents a perfect score.

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 coverage is 100% with generic descriptions ('Shodan search query'). The description enriches the query parameter with real examples like 'apache country:DE' and 'vuln:CVE-2021-44228', adding meaning beyond the schema. The page parameter is not elaborated, but its schema description supplies the default.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('Shodan's database of internet-connected devices'), with concrete query examples that illustrate valid syntax. It distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning this as general reconnaissance rather than CVE-specific or DNS-specific 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 explicitly says 'Use this for general reconnaissance and world-scale intelligence gathering', providing clear when-to-use context. It does not name alternative tools or provide exclusions, but the stated use case is specific enough to guide selection.

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