Darc Dok Search

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add matching semantics, which it does with the "every word" AND constraint. It says nothing about result ordering, relevance ranking, or what happens on zero matches, but that is a modest gap given the annotations.

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 sentence with the matched fields and the matching rule front-loaded; zero waste. It is extremely terse, but nothing in it is redundant or buried.

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 and fully described params, the description covers the core matching behavior adequately. It leaves out sibling routing and result-set expectations (ordering, limits behavior), which matter for a search tool in a family of five 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 coverage is 100% and already documents both params, so baseline is 3. The description adds the key semantic that all words must match (AND, not OR), which the schema's "Words to look for" does not make explicit.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ("Find codes") plus the matched fields (name, prefixes, area wording, attributes), so an agent knows it is a text search over code records. It does not name or contrast with siblings like darc_dok_lookup or darc_dok_codes_for, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling tools that might be better choices for lookup or code retrieval. The agent must infer that this is the free-text search entry point.

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