Darc Dok Codes For

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: results are entity-scoped with nothing broken out per ADIF subdivision, a domain limitation an agent could not infer from the schema. It does not state error behavior or confirm the read-only nature, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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?

It is short (two sentences) and every clause carries information, so there is little waste. The ordering is the problem: it leads with a mapping caveat before stating what the tool returns, which makes the first read harder than necessary.

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?

For a 2-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the one non-obvious semantic (entity-level granularity) plus sibling routing, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around the exact treatment of a supplied subdivision.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by signaling that per-subdivision output is meaningless here ('nothing per subdivision'), which tells an agent not to expect the subdivision parameter to shape results. It still does not say whether subdivision is rejected, ignored, or simply unused.

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 the resource (DOK codes resolved against a DXCC entity) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling darc_dok_search, which handles districts/towns. However, the leading clause 'DOK lists don't map to ADIF subdivisions' and the vague verb 'this answers' force the reader to reconstruct the actual purpose from the tool name rather than reading a clean verb+resource statement.

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?

It names the alternative explicitly ('Use darc_dok_search for a district or town') and implies this tool is the entity-level path, which is a usable routing rule. It stops short of an explicit when-not/prerequisite statement (e.g. what happens if a caller does pass a subdivision), so it is clear context rather than full guidance.

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