shodan_exploits_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 known. The description adds the key behavioral trait that the tool returns only a count and not individual results, which helps set expectations. No contradictions exist, but it could mention response format or rate limits for fuller 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: 'Count exploits matching a query' immediately conveys the action, followed by the caveat 'without returning individual results.' It is concise with no wasted words.

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 count tool with robust schema coverage and clear annotations, the description adequately covers the operation and clarifies the output limitation. The verb 'Count' implies a numeric result, and the tool's low complexity means no additional context is necessary. The absence of an output schema does not create a gap here.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (query and facets), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond 'matching a query,' which is already implicit in the schema. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the verb 'Count' and the resource 'exploits,' clearly stating the operation. The qualifier 'without returning individual results' distinguishes it from the sibling tool shodan_exploits_search, which likely returns detailed results. This makes the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'without returning individual results' provides clear context that this tool is for count-only needs, implying that users wanting details should use a different tool. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it does not fully meet the 5-level bar.

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