Darc Dok Lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing about read-only semantics, error behavior for invalid codes, or result completeness. It only lists output fields, which the output schema already covers.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the DOK/special-DOK split and then lists the payload. It is efficient, though the colon-and-parenthetical construction reads more like schema notes than agent-facing guidance.

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?

With an output schema present, the return-value enumeration is largely redundant, so the description's main remaining job is disambiguation and edge-case behavior — both of which are absent. For a simple one-param lookup this is adequate but thin.

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 'code' parameter is documented with examples in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the DOK/special-DOK distinction but adds no format, casing, or validation detail beyond what the schema already says.

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 retrieval of a single code's details by enumerating the returned fields ('district and local club', 'purpose, callsign, validity window and sponsoring club'), but never states a verb or explicitly says 'look up one DOK'. The word 'One' hints at single-record scope versus the plural siblings (darc_dok_search, darc_dok_codes_for), but no sibling is named or contrasted.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of when this should be chosen over darc_dok_search or darc_dok_valid_on, and no mention of prerequisites or failure conditions for an unknown code. The agent must infer routing purely from the tool name.

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