shodan_search

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

Annotations already carry the read-only safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), lowering the burden. The description adds value by specifying what results contain (services, vulnerabilities, geographic distribution, country statistics), but it does not disclose operational traits such as API-key requirements or rate limits that matter for a Shodan-backed search.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Minor redundancy exists in listing return types twice ('services, vulnerabilities, and geographic distribution' and 'country-based statistics'), but overall there is no wasted verbiage.

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 correctly takes on explaining return content, which it does (services, vulnerabilities, geo distribution). However, it omits operational essentials for a network-scanning API—authentication requirements and result pagination—and offers only vague filter syntax guidance, leaving an agent under-informed for a moderately complex tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both query and max_results are already documented. The description adds only a marginal hint that query supports advanced filters, without syntax or examples. This matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search Shodan's database of internet-connected devices') and describes what it returns. It implicitly distinguishes from the lookup siblings (ip_lookup, cve_lookup, etc.) by being a filter/statistics search rather than a single-entity lookup, though this differentiation is not made explicit.

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 mention of 'advanced search filters' and 'country-based statistics' implies this is for broad exploratory searches rather than targeted lookups, but no alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use conditions are given. An agent must infer the boundary against the six lookup siblings.

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