Shodan Internetdb

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that results include ports, hostnames, CVEs, and tags, but it does not disclose potential limitations, rate limits, or input scope beyond that.

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 compact sentence that leads with the core purpose and immediately lists the key distinguishing data categories. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter tool with a known output schema, the description covers the visible outputs but omits usage guidance and parameter details. It is minimally adequate but leaves selection and input-format questions unanswered.

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 0% and the description does not explain the required 'ip' parameter's format, accepted address types, or validation rules. It only implies an IP lookup through the tool name and service context, which is not sufficient to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific action ('lookup') on a specific resource ('Shodan InternetDB') and enumerates the distinct output types: open ports, hostnames, CVEs, and tags. This clearly differentiates it from sibling recon tools like whois_ip, bgp_ip, or hackertarget_hostsearch, which are not Shodan InternetDB 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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It does not mention suitable use cases, exclusions, or sibling tools, so an agent would have to infer selection criteria from the tool name and output list.

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