shodan_host_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that: it says nothing about Shodan API key requirements, query-credit consumption, rate limits, or error behavior for unknown/reserved IPs—all material for an open-world lookup.

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 no filler. It is under-informative rather than bloated, so it scores high on conciseness but not on substance.

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 an open-world network lookup with two params (one of them an undocumented credential) and no output schema, the description should explain what host data is returned and how the API key is supplied. It provides neither, so an agent cannot anticipate response shape or auth handling.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it largely fails. It never mentions the 'ip' parameter format (IPv4/IPv6, hostnames allowed?) or the role of 'api_key' (required vs. env fallback), leaving both undocumented.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Shodan information') scoped to 'a specific IP address', which implicitly separates it from shodan_search (query-based) and shodan_stats (aggregate). It does not name the siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the IP-specific scope is clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus shodan_search or shodan_stats, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The only routing signal is the phrase 'specific IP address', which is implied rather than stated as a usage rule.

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