shodan_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of rate limits, result pagination, credit consumption, or how results are ranked/truncated, all of which matter for an open-world search API.

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 single sentence is compact and front-loaded, but at this length it is under-specified rather than concise — there is no second sentence carrying the query-syntax or routing information the agent needs.

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, no parameter documentation, and no differentiation from two sibling Shodan tools, the definition leaves critical gaps: query syntax, result shape, and when to prefer host_info or stats. An agent cannot confidently construct a call from this alone.

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 three parameters, and the description does not compensate at all. It never explains that `query` accepts Shodan filter syntax (e.g., port:, country:), what `page` controls, or that `api_key` can override a default key.

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 ("Search") and resource ("Shodan for internet-connected devices"), which is better than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like shodan_host_info or shodan_stats, leaving the boundary between "search", "host info", and "stats" unclear.

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_host_info (look up a known IP) or shodan_stats (aggregate summaries), nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing an api_key. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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