shodan_host_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, the description only states the basic function and does not mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or the format of returned data. For a tool that likely requires an API key (though optional in schema), this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, short sentence that directly states the purpose. It is concise and front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it misses opportunities to add valuable detail without significant additional length. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description should at least clarify what 'Shodan information' entails and how the parameters should be formatted. Without this, the agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively, especially since no annotations are present to supplement the description.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its parameters. The description does not explain what the 'ip' parameter (required) or the 'api_key' parameter (optional) mean or how they should be used. The agent must infer the purpose of these parameters from the tool name alone, which provides no additional value beyond the schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get Shodan information for a specific IP address.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), a distinct resource ('Shodan information'), and a specific qualifier ('for a specific IP address'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like shodan_search and shodan_stats, which have different scopes.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as shodan_search or shodan_stats. There is no indication of prerequisites, limitations, or recommended scenarios. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name alone.

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