shodan_api_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly a safe read. The description adds useful context by specifying what information is returned (query credits, scan credits, limits), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or rate limits. This adds some value without being rich, consistent with the calibration example.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition. It is concisely structured and immediately comprehensible.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is complete. It states what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient given the lack of an output schema. The annotations cover safety, and no other contextual details are necessary for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema to explain. The description provides the tool's purpose and output content, which is sufficient given the lack of parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('API plan info'), and enumerates the key contents (query credits, scan credits, limits). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform searches, DNS resolution, or scan management.

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 context—use this tool when you need API plan information—but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or references to sibling tools, so it falls at the 'implied usage' level.

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