Parse search query

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful implication that parsing precedes and avoids paid API calls, but it never states explicitly that no Shodan credits/network call are consumed, nor what the parsed result looks like beyond the three bucket names.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the action is front-loaded and the motivating use case follows immediately. Nothing redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description reasonably enumerates the result components (filters, attributes, free text), which is enough for an agent to know what to expect. It could add a note on error behavior for malformed queries, but the core is covered.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'query' parameter, so the description would need to compensate. It only implies the input is a raw Shodan query string, offering no syntax, filter-format, or quoting guidance, leaving the schema to speak for itself.

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 ('Break a Shodan query into...') and names the output decomposition (filters, attributes, leftover free-text), which distinguishes it from shodan_search and shodan_search_filters. It falls short of 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the search/execute sibling it is meant to precede.

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?

'Useful to verify query syntax before spending credits' gives a clear trigger condition (pre-flight validation before a paid search). It stops short of naming alternatives such as shodan_search_filters or shodan_query_search, so the agent must infer the routing itself.

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