search_censys

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It specifies the tool is passive, public-source, requires authorization, and distinguishes IP vs domain capabilities. However, it omits details on rate limits, error handling, and 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?

Four sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, examples, usage constraints, and authorization. Front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return data for IP and domain. It does not mention pagination or error scenarios, but for a search tool of this nature it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 has 50% description coverage (only json_output described). The description compensates by explaining the 'target' parameter with examples of how different inputs (IP/domain) yield different data. The json_output flag is not elaborated, but the schema already describes it.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Censys for internet-facing infrastructure data'), with concrete examples for IP and domain queries. It clearly distinguishes from sibling search tools by specifying the data source (Censys).

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 explains when to use (searching internet infrastructure), prerequisites (CENSYS_PAT), limitations (free vs paid), and ethical boundaries (authorized use only). It provides good context but does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools.

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