shodan_host_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature, dependency on environment variable, and that data is from Shodan's last scan. However, it omits details like error handling or rate limits, which would further enhance 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?

Two sentences convey purpose, behavior, and API modes with no redundancy. The most critical information is front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 purpose, data types, and behavior modes. It lacks details on return format or empty-case handling, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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% for the ip parameter, which already describes IPv4/IPv6. The description adds an example ('1.1.1.1') and clarifies format, providing marginal extra value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('look up'), resource ('IP address'), and the specific data types ('open ports, hostnames, CPEs, known CVEs'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (cve_lookup, nuclei_scan) by specifying the Shodan source and that it's not a live probe.

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: default behavior (InternetDB, no API key) vs. full API when SHODAN_API_KEY is set, and that it's read-only reflecting last scan. It indirectly guides usage for recon vs. live scanning, though lacks explicit comparisons to siblings.

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