Check Peppol e-invoicing reachability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses billing behavior ($0.01, first call free), the nuanced status semantics (absent from directory is a successful 200, not a 404; only non-existent Sirene identifiers are 404 and not billed), error codes (400 INVALID_INPUT, INVALID_CHECKSUM), and Luhn checksum validation. This is exceptional depth for a description.

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?

The description is dense but well-organized. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, followed by pricing and docs link. The parameter detail lives in the schema where it belongs. It's lengthy but every clause carries meaning; the behavioral details earn their place given the complexity of the paid/404 nuances.

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 single-parameter tool with a 100% schema-covered parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what's needed: the check itself, the billing model, error cases, and identifier variants. There's no output schema, but the description mentions what's returned (participant identifiers, accepted document types, reachable flag) adequately. Very complete for its complexity.

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 schema has 100% coverage with a single detailed parameter description. The description reinforces format requirements (9-digit SIREN, 14-digit SIRET, ICD:value participant format) and error semantics. It primarily defers to the schema for parameter detail, which is appropriate given full coverage, but the description itself doesn't add much beyond the schema's rich parameter text.

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 what the tool does: check whether a company can receive e-invoices on the Peppol network, specifying the data source (official Peppol Directory export) and the output (participant identifiers and accepted document types). The title 'Check Peppol e-invoicing reachability' reinforces the purpose precisely.

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 gives clear context: use before sending an e-invoice, and specifies the identifier types accepted (SIREN, SIRET, participant ID). It explains the 'Not registered' paid answer versus free/404 scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like invoice_validate or preflight_supplier, though the paid-vs-not-paid distinction provides useful guidance.

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