lookup_shodan_host

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, and it delivers: it states the API-key auth requirement, the 100-result cap, the bounded/truncated banner behavior, and the critical caveat that observations are not live checks. This goes well beyond what a bare description would offer.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the purpose is front-loaded, the prerequisite second, and the behavioral limits third. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, auth, result cap, truncation, and data freshness — enough for correct invocation. Minor missing items (rate limits, error behavior without a key, explicit sibling routing) are each non-blocking, so the overall profile remains strong.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the plain string 'ip' needs the description to clarify acceptable values, and 'a public IP' does add meaningful scope. However, it leaves open address family (IPv4 vs IPv6), casing/format expectations, and rejects like CIDR or private ranges, so the compensation is partial.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve Shodan's recorded services') with a clear target ('for a host IP'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_shodan or lookup_domain. It also sharpens the definition by bounding the result set (up to 100 services) and clarifying the data is recorded, not live.

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 a single context: use it when you have a public IP and want Shodan's historical observations; the API-key requirement is a prerequisite. It never explicitly names when-not-to-use or routes to siblings such as search_shodan or lookup_domain for other IP/domain tasks.

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