Host lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description still earns credit by adding two things annotations cannot: the default output shape (compact analyst summary of org, ports, products, vulns) and the crucial cost fact that host lookups do not spend query credits. It omits whether results are cached or how quickly the record changes.

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 short sentences, zero waste: purpose first, output-mode switch second, cost caveat third. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 no output schema, the description does part of the job by characterizing both return shapes (compact summary contents vs. raw banner record). Combined with full schema coverage and rich annotations, an agent can call this correctly, though the effect of history and include_raw on the returned payload is only implied by their schema strings.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds meaning only for `summary`, clarifying that the compact card contains org, ports, products, and vulns, and leaves minify, history, and include_raw entirely to the schema.

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 ('Look up an IPv4/IPv6 address in Shodan') plus the two response modes, so an agent immediately knows this is a single-host lookup. It does not name a sibling (e.g. shodan_search or shodan_internetdb) to sharpen the boundary, but the per-host scope is inherently distinct from the fleet-wide search tools.

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 explains when to leave the default summary on versus setting summary=false for the raw banner record, which is genuine usage guidance. It offers no guidance on when to pick this over shodan_internetdb, shodan_honeyscore, or shodan_search for a given IP, and gives no exclusions, so selection against alternatives is left to inference.

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