check_srv

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

The description adds behavior beyond annotations: it probes ~16 prefixes in parallel, returns discovered services, and flags insecure ones. Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent, and the description enriches understanding.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with the core action, then output description and usage guidance. Every part earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (3 params, output schema exists, comprehensive annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits adequately. It is complete for the agent to correctly select and invoke this 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 the schema already documents parameters. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond implying the scope of probing. A score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 uses specific verbs ('Map', 'probing', 'Returns', 'flags') and clearly identifies the resource (DNS-visible service footprint via SRV records). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on SRV records and insecure service advertisements.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when asked to map DNS-visible services or flag insecure service advertisements.' While it doesn't list alternatives, the context is clear and the sibling set implies specialized tools for other record types.

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