shodan_host

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read operation ('Get'), but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, whether historical data is included by default, or the potential size of the response. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates this.

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 a single short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 data retrieval tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description combined with the schema provides adequate context. However, given the large number of sibling tools, it could be more explicit about what specific information is returned.

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 each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. As per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema descriptions are complete.

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 retrieves all available information for an IP, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like shodan_search (which searches across IPs) and shodan_info (which provides account info). However, it lacks detail about what 'all available information' entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like shodan_search or shodan_count. With many sibling tools, the absence of usage context could lead to incorrect tool selection.

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