List search facets

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, destructive=false, so the safety and purity profile is fully covered. The description adds only that facets summarize results and says nothing about return shape or whether the list is static or account-dependent, which is modest added value against a lower annotation-aware bar.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and its role are stated immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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-param read tool with full annotations, the definition is close to complete, but it omits the crucial follow-on context: that the returned facet names are then passed to the search/count tools as facet parameters. Without that, an agent knows what the tool returns but not how the output is consumed.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter text 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List facet names') plus the qualifier that they summarize search results, so an agent knows it is a discovery/enumeration endpoint. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like shodan_search_filters or shodan_search_tokens, which could easily be confused with facets.

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 'that can summarize search results' implies it belongs in a search workflow, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative (e.g., shodan_search_filters vs. shodan_search_tokens) is named. Usage is only weakly inferable.

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