shodan_dns_reverse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond what these annotations convey (e.g., no response format, rate limits, or error behavior). It is consistent but adds minimal transparency.

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 that states the action and resource with zero unnecessary words. It is ideal for an AI agent to quickly parse.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter lookup tool with clear annotations and a complete input schema. The description fully conveys its purpose and distinguishing characteristic (reverse DNS) in a compact way. No output schema exists, but for such a simple read operation, the return value (hostnames) is self-evident.

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 schema fully covers the only parameter ('ips' with description 'Comma-separated IP addresses'), and the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 ('look up') and resource ('hostnames for IP addresses'), and explicitly labels the operation as 'reverse DNS lookup'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool shodan_dns_resolve, which likely handles forward lookups.

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 reverse DNS terminology provides clear context for when to use this tool (given IPs, needing hostnames), and the distinction from resolve is implied. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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