shodan_cpe_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the CPE 2.3 format and matching semantics but does not disclose pagination behavior or result shape. This provides some value beyond annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word is purposeful and directly conveys the tool's function.

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 simple lookup tool, the description plus schema is adequate: it specifies the required product parameter and optional pagination controls. It lacks details about the return format or empty-result behavior, but given the simplicity and full schema coverage, it is nearly complete.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), including product, skip, count, and limit. The top-level description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline but does not compensate further.

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 states a specific action (look up), a specific resource (CPE 2.3 identifiers), and an input (product name). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like shodan_cve_lookup, which focus on CVEs.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when a product name needs to be mapped to CPE 2.3 identifiers. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is unambiguous and sufficient for an agent to know when to select it.

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