shodan_stats

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not state that the tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication (api_key is optional in schema), or mention rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The word 'aggregated' hints at behavior but lacks depth.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is underspecified for a tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions. Structure is minimal, lacking any breakdown or bullet points.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is severely incomplete. It omits explanations of parameters, output format, and any constraints. A robust description would include parameter details and usage context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It does not define 'query', 'facets', or 'api_key'. The user must infer meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('aggregated statistics for a Shodan query'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'shodan_search' by emphasizing statistics rather than raw results. However, it could be more specific about what statistics are provided.

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 tool versus alternatives like 'shodan_search' or 'shodan_host_info'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when aggregation is appropriate.

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