shodan_scan

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: each IP consumes 1 scan credit, which is a cost/rate constraint. It does not explain the asynchronous nature or return format, but the credit cost is a meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words or repetition. The credit cost is stated efficiently. This is an exemplary concise description.

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 tool with one parameter and clear annotations, the description is quite complete. It conveys the action, target scope, and a key constraint (credit cost). It does not mention that scans are asynchronous or that status can be checked via a sibling, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the availability of annotations.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'ips', which is described with examples and format. The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 ('Request Shodan to scan') and clearly identifies the resource (specific IPs or CIDR ranges). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like shodan_search or shodan_host, which perform lookup operations rather than initiating 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 usage: use this tool to initiate a scan. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention related tools like shodan_scan_status for checking scan results. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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