shodan_exploits_search

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world safety. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the data sources covered (Exploit-DB, CVE, Metasploit), which helps set expectations. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: first gives the primary action, second adds scope. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 search tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description covers the core purpose and data scope. It doesn't detail return format, but the schema's 'detailed' and maxResults parameters imply structure; overall adequate.

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 covers 100% of parameters (query, page, facets, detailed, maxResults) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema.

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 'Search the Shodan Exploits database' with a specific verb and resource. It adds scope by listing 'Exploit-DB, CVE, Metasploit, and more' but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling CVE-specific tools.

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 implies usage for searching exploit data but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. Sibling tools like shodan_exploits_count and shodan_cve_search exist but no guidance is given.

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