shodan_scan_status

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

The description provides no behavioral details beyond the purpose. It does not disclose response format, potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint: false), but the description adds no additional context about external behavior or safety, which is a notable gap for a tool with a simple but potentially non-read-only operation.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy, fluff, or repetition of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the status check returns (e.g., status values, progress states, or error indications). It only says 'check the status' without detailing the response structure, leaving the agent uncertain about how to interpret the result. It also lacks any mention of error conditions or what a scan ID refers to beyond the schema.

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 schema description already fully covers the only parameter (scan_id) with its source and type. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage. The description neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

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 ('check') and names the resource ('status of a previously submitted scan'), clearly distinguishing this tool from shodan_scan (submission) and shodan_list_scans (listing all scans). It is unambiguous and concise.

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 after submitting a scan via shodan_scan, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like shodan_list_scans, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond that implication. The context is present but not fully developed.

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