Darc Dok Lookup

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what is returned, including the citation, but does not describe not-found behavior or any other runtime traits beyond the annotations and output schema.

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 definition is a single sentence with no wasted preamble. The colon-and-parenthetical structure is slightly awkward, but it is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 robust annotations, an output schema, and 100% schema description coverage for the sole parameter, the description supplies enough context for a simple lookup tool. Its main remaining gap is the lack of sibling routing guidance, which is already penalized under usage guidelines.

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 parameter is well documented with DOK and special-DOK examples. The description reinforces the one-code lookup model but adds no syntax or format detail 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 makes clear that this is a lookup for a single DOK or special DOK and specifies the kinds of data returned for each: district/local club for DOKs, and purpose/callsign/validity/sponsor for special DOKs. The verb is implicit rather than explicit, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as darc_dok_search or darc_dok_valid_on.

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 guidance about when to use this lookup versus the sibling tools, nor any when-not conditions. The phrase 'One DOK or special DOK' implies a single-code lookup, but the agent receives no routing help among darc_dok_search, darc_dok_codes_for, darc_dok_valid_on, and this tool.

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