shodan_honeyscore

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

Annotations already declare this tool as read-only, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds the return-value interpretation (0.0 = not a honeypot, 1.0 = honeypot), which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 two short sentences that front-load the action and output range. There is no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool. The description fully states what it does, what it returns, and annotations confirm its read-only nature. The schema documents the required input, making the overall context complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 covers the only parameter 'ip' with a description ('IP address to check'), and the tool description does not add any further parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Calculate') and resource ('probability that an IP is a honeypot'), and also defines the output range (0.0 to 1.0). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling Shodan tools that focus on host info, search, or scans.

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 the use case—assessing whether an IP is a honeypot—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like shodan_host or shodan_search, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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