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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful context: never sends a Peppol invoice, no compliance guarantee, and that it is purely diagnostic. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 sentences, each adding value: purpose, clarification of scope, and explicit constraints. No redundant or empty phrasing.

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 output schema exists and annotations provide safety info, the description covers all essential aspects: scope (canary workspace), output type (diagnostics), and limitations (no compliance or sending). It is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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?

The only parameter (verifyWithProvider) has a description in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool provides a readiness snapshot with specific outputs (what is ready/missing, next step). It distinguishes from compliance certificates and explicitly says it never sends invoices, differentiating it from sibling tools like validate_invoice or lookup_peppol_participant.

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 description tells when to use (for diagnostics, not compliance) and what not to expect (no sending, no legal guarantee). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use vs. siblings or provide exclusion scenarios.

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