shodan_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the filter syntax and the output format ('formatted host summaries'), which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies expected behavior.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, query syntax, and output format. No fluff 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately conveys the main purpose, query syntax, and output type. It does not explain pagination or result limits, but those are covered by the schema. A more specific description of the returned summaries would push this to a 5, but the current level is sufficient.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, including query examples. The description's filter list overlaps with the schema's query example and adds minimal additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it searches Shodan for devices matching a query, using a specific verb and resource. It provides distinct scope ('devices') that differentiates it from sibling tools like shodan_exploits_search and shodan_search_queries.

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 clearly implies usage for device discovery and provides filter examples for constructing queries, but it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternative tools. The 'devices' scope offers context that helps distinguish it from other Shodan searches.

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