shodan_cve_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail—the mutual exclusivity of cpe23 and product—which is not captured in the annotations or schema. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not fully describe pagination or output behavior.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. The constraint is included without unnecessary elaboration, making it maximally efficient.

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?

The description covers the search capabilities and the key constraint, but it does not mention return value shape (e.g., summaries vs. full CVE objects via 'detailed'), pagination, or date filters—though those are documented in the schema. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is adequate but leaves the agent to infer output details and the distinction between filtering and sorting by EPSS.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by naming the core filter categories (CPE, product, KEV, EPSS) and explicitly stating the cpe23/product incompatibility, which is not obvious from the schema alone. This helps the agent map high-level intents to the correct parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('CVEs') along with the main filter dimensions (CPE, product name, KEV status, EPSS score). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like shodan_cve_lookup (single CVE lookup) and shodan_cves_kev (KEV-only list), establishing a unified search capability.

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 an explicit constraint that cpe23 and product cannot be combined, which is a useful usage rule. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus the more specialized sibling tools (e.g., shodan_cves_kev for KEV-only queries), relying on the filter list to imply usage context.

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