Count exploits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety and idempotency are covered; the description's added value is disclosing that the response is a count rather than a result set. It says nothing about how the count is returned, whether facets alter the return shape, or any cost/credit implications of a count query against an open-world API.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the parameter burden entirely unmet rather than deliberately deferred.

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?

With two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and an open-world API, the description should at minimum explain what `query` accepts and what `facets` does. An agent could call it, but only by guessing at query syntax and ignoring facets.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it does not. The required `query` is only obliquely referenced ('matching exploits') with no hint that it is a Shodan search filter string, and the optional `facets` parameter is never mentioned at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Count matching exploits') and adds a scope qualifier ('without returning the full result set') that implicitly separates it from shodan_exploits. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, so differentiation requires inference.

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 phrase 'without returning the full result set' implies when to use this over the full-result sibling, but there is no explicit 'use this when you only need a total' statement and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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