Scan protocols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the mild signal that this is a static enumeration of supported protocols rather than a live scan, and says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or whether the list is static or version-dependent.

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 no filler. It is as short as it can be, though the terseness leaves 'protocols' slightly ambiguous without a clarifying clause.

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 zero-arg reference list with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. A short note on the return shape (e.g. a list of protocol name strings) would close the remaining gap, since no output schema exists to document it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the text misleads about inputs.

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 verb 'List' plus the resource 'protocols available for on-demand Internet scans' specifies what the tool returns. It is distinguishable from data-returning siblings like shodan_ports and shodan_services in that it is a catalog rather than scan output, though the description never states this contrast explicitly.

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 'available for on-demand Internet scans' implies the result feeds shodan_scan or shodan_scan_internet, but no sibling is named and there is no when-to-use/when-not statement. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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