shodan_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses API key requirements, passive behavior, and target allowlisting. It also explains the return data and query modes. It stops short of revealing rate limits or error handling, but the disclosed traits are valuable.

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 Args, Returns, and Note sections, each earning its place. It is succinct yet comprehensive, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 complexity (4 parameters, output schema present), the description covers prerequisites, parameter meanings, return values, and usage modes. It provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly, even without richer schema hints.

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 schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter in plain language: target, query_type, query, and limit. It includes examples for the query string, making the semantics clear and actionable.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Query Shodan for exposed services, vulnerabilities, and device information.' This clearly states the tool's function and scope, and distinguishes it from sibling scan tools (nmap, masscan) by focusing on Shodan's passive database.

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 clear context for use, such as 'Passive OSINT — queries Shodan's database, does NOT interact with target directly,' which separates it from active scanners. It also explains the two query modes (host vs search) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions beyond that.

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