shodan_myip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral nuance that the IP is 'as seen by Shodan', implying it may differ from local or other perspectives, but it does not disclose network behavior, rate limits, or response format.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and result. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundant information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with comprehensive annotations and a self-explanatory output, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation. The lack of an output schema is not an issue since the expected result is clearly stated as the public IP address.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description carries no parameter burden. Per the rubric baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate because there are no parameters for the description to explain, and it correctly focuses on the output.

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 ('Get') and resource ('your current public IP address'), making the action immediately clear. The phrase 'as seen by Shodan' adds a distinguishing qualifier that separates it from sibling tools like shodan_search or shodan_host.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. However, as a zero-parameter utility, its use is implicitly obvious—call it to retrieve your public IP. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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