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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the effect of each parameter (history, minify, raw) and describes the return format (dict with fields like org, isp, asn, etc.). It does not mention rate limits or error conditions, but overall provides good transparency.

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 reasonably concise, consisting of two paragraphs: a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, but could be slightly tighter by removing redundant phrasing.

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 that an output schema exists (context signal), the description does not need to fully detail return values, but it still lists key fields. Parameters are explained completely. Missing error handling or example calls, but overall complete for a simple lookup tool.

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 is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains all four parameters: ip (address to check), history (full history), minify (truncated data), and raw (full JSON). This adds significant value beyond 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?

Description clearly states it returns detailed information about an IP address from the Shodan database ('Zwraca szczegółowe informacje o adresie IP z bazy Shodan'). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'search' tool, which likely returns a list of IPs.

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 implies usage for looking up a specific IP, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search' tool or provide exclusions. Context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives.

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

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

The description discloses that the 'raw' parameter returns full raw JSON instead of a pruned response, and specifies the return structure (total, matches, facets). No annotations exist, but the description adequately covers key behavioral aspects for a search tool (likely read-only).

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 well-structured with a clear opening and a parameter list. It is lengthy due to the number of parameters, but each sentence serves a purpose. Could be slightly more concise by grouping similar parameters.

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 high parameter count (24) and lack of annotations, the description covers all parameters and includes return format details. It lacks examples or edge cases but is sufficient for basic usage.

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 description adds meaning to each parameter by explaining its filter role and expected format (e.g., 'country: kod ISO'). With 0% schema coverage, this is essential. While terse, it covers all 24 parameters and clarifies usage beyond the 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 clearly states the tool searches Shodan and combines a free query with optional dork filters. It indicates the tool's purpose as a search interface. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'host', which likely serves a different purpose (e.g., host details).

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 explains when to use the 'query' parameter (can be empty if filters provided) and lists all optional filters. It implies usage for searching Shodan but does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over 'host' or what scenarios to avoid.

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