Shodan InternetDB

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds materially: no API key, the IP is never contacted, data may be days old, unscanned IPs return empty ports with a note, and results are cached for 6h. That is exactly the kind of freshness, cost, and failure-mode context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three short paragraphs: what it returns and its provenance, then when to use it, then a caching note. Front-loaded with the payload contents, zero filler sentences.

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, the description still tells the agent what fields come back and what an empty result looks like, plus freshness and caching behavior. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter already carries format examples (IPv4/IPv6). The description adds no syntax or constraint beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 exactly what is returned (open ports, hostnames, CPEs, tags, known CVEs) for a specific resource (an IP), and its data source (Shodan's free InternetDB). It is clearly distinguishable from ip_whois and asn_lookup, which it names.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: on A records from dns_lookup, or on any IP before escalating to ip_whois/asn_lookup. Names the alternatives and the sequencing condition that selects them.

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