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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the record type and services. It does not explain what the tool does with the query, what a successful lookup returns, or how failures are handled.

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 text is short and front-loaded, but it repeats 'SRV' and reads more like a label than a functional description. The brevity saves space but omits operational details the agent needs.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the input semantics are entirely absent and no behavioral context is given. For a tool among dozens of DNS-related siblings, this is not enough information to call it confidently.

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 0%, and the description never mentions the q parameter. The only semantic hint is the parameter name itself; the default empty string offers no help. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 identifies a specific resource (SRV records) and the relevant service types (SIP/XMPP/mail/CalDAV), so an agent can infer the domain. It doesn't explicitly state the operation or differentiate itself from the many DNS-related sibling tools, but 'discovery' implies lookup.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dns, dnsmx, or hostname. The description only names a category of use; it does not state conditions, exclusions, or preferred sibling tools.

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