Search exploits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the API-key authentication requirement, which is genuinely new context beyond the annotations and matters for invocation.

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 tight sentence with the resource first and the API-key caveat close behind. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no mention of pagination behavior for page or what facets does, the description leaves substantial gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly. Only the query-filter hints partially fill the void.

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 carries the full burden, yet it never mentions the page or facets parameters. It does add meaningful context about the query string's filter fields (cve, type, platform, port, author), which is a real contribution the schema lacks, but two of three parameters remain undocumented anywhere.

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 (Search) and resource (Shodan Exploits archive), which is clearer than the terse title. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like shodan_exploit_count or shodan_cve, but the archive name gives an agent enough to identify the right resource family.

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 only guidance is a prerequisite ('requires API key'). There is no statement of when to use this versus shodan_exploit_count, shodan_cve, or the general shodan_search, and no indication of query syntax expectations.

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