Darc Dok Valid On

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: special DOKs only count inside DARC's published window, and merged DOKs surface replaced_by (with the A49→A12 example). It omits auth/error behavior, but for a read-style validation query the edge-case semantics are the important part.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core question, followed by two edge-case clarifications that each earn their place. Slightly dense phrasing in the special-DOK clause but no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter query with an output schema present, the description covers the semantics an agent needs and even foreshadows the replaced_by return field. Nothing essential is missing, though it could note what a false/invalid result implies.

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 both parameters are already documented with examples and formats; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only marginal value by reinforcing that 'code' may be a DOK or a special DOK, which the schema already states.

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 check ('Whether a DOK ... was valid on a date') with the resource and the temporal dimension, which distinguishes it from siblings like darc_dok_lookup or darc_dok_search that fetch rather than validate. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the validity-check framing, so an agent can infer it wants this tool when the question is 'was code X valid on date Y'. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as darc_dok_lookup for plain code resolution.

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