On-demand scan

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

Annotations declare the write-ish, open-world, non-idempotent profile, and the description adds high-value context beyond them: one scan credit per IP, paid plan requirement, and the two-step confirmation gating. It omits that scans are asynchronous and results must be fetched elsewhere, which is the main missing behavioral note.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, with the core action first and the hard requirements immediately after. Every sentence carries a constraint an agent needs before calling.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain that a scan is queued asynchronously and results come from shodan_scan_status. It covers cost/auth/gating well but leaves the caller without a picture of what happens after invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description ties confirm to credit spend and confirms the /24 threshold for confirm_large, giving semantic weight the schema alone only hints at. The 'each IP spends 1 scan credit' line is genuinely additive.

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 action (crawl IPs/CIDRs on demand) and is distinguishable from read-only siblings like shodan_host or shodan_search. It doesn't explicitly name which sibling to use instead of shodan_scan_internet, but the scope here is clearly user-supplied targets.

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?

Gives concrete gating rules: confirm=true required, confirm_large=true for CIDRs wider than /24, paid plan required. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over shodan_scan_internet or shodan_host, but the conditions for a successful call are explicit.

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