shodan_ip_vulns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned data (ports, hostnames, CPEs, CVE IDs, tags) and notes that no API key is required, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or data freshness, but the tool is read-only and low-risk.

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 with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds unique value (returns, no API key). Highly efficient.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what returns and that no authentication is needed. It could mention data source limitations or response format, but it is largely complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% (the 'ip' parameter has a clear example). The description adds no further meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: to get known vulnerabilities for an IP address via Shodan InternetDB. It specifies the action (Get), resource (vulnerabilities for an IP), and data source, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on CVE IDs or product 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 implies usage when one needs vulnerabilities for an IP, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare to siblings like shodan_cve or shodan_product. The lack of exclusions or alternatives leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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