List scans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the account-scoping detail; it says nothing about pagination, result limits, or what fields are returned. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource and following with the scoping constraint. Nothing extraneous.

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 zero-parameter list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is the lack of pagination/result-size guidance, which is minor but could matter for an agent deciding how to page through scan listings.

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, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. This is the baseline case where no parameter explanation is needed.

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 description states a specific verb (List) and resource (on-demand scans) with a useful scope qualifier ('submitted by this account'), which distinguishes it from shodan_scan (scan submission) and shodan_scan_status. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the retrieval tool for previously submitted scans, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or mention of shodan_scan_status/shoden_scan alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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