pentest_osint_shodan

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one genuinely useful operational fact — that SHODAN_API_KEY must exist in the environment — but says nothing about query-credit consumption, rate limiting, empty-result or error behavior, or what the results contain.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the environment requirement is parenthetically separated so it does not obscure the main statement. It is efficiently written, though the efficiency comes partly from omitting information rather than from tight editing.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage on two parameters, the description is too thin for the tool's complexity. An agent knows what to call but not how to phrase the query, how many results to expect, or what a response looks like.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters and does not. Shodan's query syntax (filters like port:, country:, product:) is non-obvious and undocumented here, and the purpose and default of 'limit' are left entirely to the bare schema.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Query') with a specific resource ('the Shodan API for exposed services'), making the tool's function immediately identifiable. It is distinguishable from OSINT siblings such as pentest_osint_cloud_assets and pentest_osint_crtsh by naming Shodan, but it never states that differentiation explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for Shodan versus the many other OSINT and recon siblings (crtsh, cloud_assets, recon_dns, recon_portscan). Usage is only implied by the word 'exposed services', and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the API key are given.

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