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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact, the 2-credit cost, but says nothing about failure modes for malformed records or partial parses.

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 opening 'SRV Record Parser: SRV Record Parser analyzes' duplicates the title verbatim before any new information appears. The remainder is a single efficient sentence plus cost, but the front-loaded repetition wastes the most valuable position.

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 one parameter, full schema coverage, populated annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call the tool. Only the malformed-input behavior is left unaddressed.

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% and the single `record` parameter is documented with a full example SRV string, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format rules (e.g., whether the TTL/class fields are optional) beyond the listed output fields.

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 names a specific verb (analyzes/extracts) and resource (DNS SRV records) and enumerates the fields recovered: priority, weight, port, and target. An agent can tell this is a parser for SRV-format strings, though the many sibling parsers (CAARecordParser, CSRParser) are never contrasted.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as DNSLookup or MXLookup. Usage is only inferable from the purpose sentence, and nothing says when this tool should be avoided.

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