shodan_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the annotations: 'without consuming query credits,' which is not inferable from the schema or annotations. This gives useful context about cost and side effects, though it does not detail the response format.

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 two sentences, both relevant and free of filler. It front-loads the core action ('Count search results') followed by a practical benefit. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and a key behavioral trait (credit savings). There is no output schema, but 'Count search results' sufficiently implies the return type. The absence of explicit response format details is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 100% (both 'query' and 'facets' have descriptions). The tool description itself does not add any additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Count search results.' It also highlights a key differentiator from sibling tools like shodan_search: 'without consuming query credits.' This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from alternatives in the same family.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful for scoping searches.' It also implicitly contrasts with shodan_search by noting the credits savings, suggesting when to choose this tool over a full search. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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