Darc Dok Codes For

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive behavior, and a closed-world scope. The description adds useful domain context that DOK lists do not map to ADIF subdivisions, but it does not clarify output behavior or edge cases beyond that caveat.

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 description is short and contains no obvious filler, but it opens with a caveat rather than a front-loaded statement of what the tool does. The second sentence is more useful than the first for tool selection.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety traits, so return values and mutability need not be explained. However, the description remains ambiguous about the tool's exact output domain and does not fully distinguish it from all siblings.

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 dxcc and subdivision are already documented in the schema. The description adds only an example entity and a caveat about subdivision mapping, without adding syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 implies the tool returns entity-level DOK codes and distinguishes itself from darc_dok_search, but it never explicitly states a clear verb and resource such as 'returns DOK codes for a DXCC entity.' The phrase 'this answers for entity 230 (Germany) with nothing per subdivision' is vague and relies heavily on the tool name.

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 explicitly names an alternative, darc_dok_search, and gives the condition for using it: 'for a district or town.' That is clear routing guidance, though it does not address when to use other siblings like darc_dok_lookup or darc_dok_valid_on.

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