Search Shodan

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context the annotations lack: when a credit is consumed (filters present or page > 1) and that the default response is compact match rows.

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 with no waste. The core action, example, credit rule, and alternative are all front-loaded in that order.

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?

Covers the action, query syntax, cost model, default response shape, and a sizing alternative, which is a lot for a tool with no output schema. Facet/field usage and the 100-page cap remain undocumented, keeping it short of complete.

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 50%, so the description should compensate more than it does. It explains the query string syntax and the page>1 credit trigger, but leaves facets, fields, minify, and summary unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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's banner database') and gives a concrete query example ('apache country:DE'). It also names the sibling it defers sizing to (shodan_count), so an agent can place it among the many Shodan 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?

Explicitly recommends 'Prefer shodan_count to size a query first,' giving a clear when-to-use-an-alternative rule. It does not, however, distinguish this from similar search siblings like shodan_query_search or shodan_search_facets.

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