shodan_host

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves host details (non-destructive) and lists returned data, but does not mention rate limits, pagination, or behavior when IP is not found. Adequate for a simple lookup but not fully 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?

Single sentence with colon-separated list and prerequisite note. No unnecessary words, well-structured for quick comprehension.

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, description covers purpose, input, and sample fields. Could mention return format (JSON) but overall complete for intended use.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter 'ip' described as 'IP address to look up'. Description adds context about the returned fields but does not enhance parameter meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema already explains the parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get', specifies resource 'Shodan host details for an IP', and enumerates specific data fields (ports, services, banners, vulns, OS, ASN, geolocation), distinguishing it from sibling tools like shodan_search which searches by query.

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?

Mentions prerequisite 'Requires SHODAN_API_KEY', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as shodan_dns_resolve or shodan_search. Usage context is implied by the specific detail retrieval.

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