Darc Dok Search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important matching rule (every word must appear, across multiple fields), but says nothing about case sensitivity, ordering/ranking of results, or what an empty result means.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause earns its place by defining the match semantics. Slightly terse for a domain-jargon tool, which costs it the top score.

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, so return-value explanation is excused, and the two parameters are fully documented in the schema. What is missing for a search tool is context on result ordering and how matches across different fields are prioritized or combined.

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 param meaning by clarifying that 'text' is tokenized into words and that ALL words must match — an AND semantic the schema's 'Words to look for' does not convey.

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 specific verb (find) and resource (codes), plus the matching fields (name, prefixes, area wording, attributes). That scope is clear enough to separate it from lookup-style siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly and 'Darc Dok' domain jargon is never unpacked.

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?

The described AND-matching semantics imply a keyword-search use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing against alternatives such as darc_dok_lookup or darc_dok_codes_for. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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