get_peppol_codelist_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. 'Report' clearly signals a non-mutating query, and 'currently configured locally' clarifies scope. It does not discuss side effects or edge cases, but the tool takes no parameters and appears to be a straightforward read operation.

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 that immediately states the action, subject, and scope. There is no redundant wording, and the key fact ('currently configured locally') is placed prominently.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It could briefly mention that this is a local/read-only check or clarify why the version matters, but the core information needed to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds appropriate context about what is being reported without needing to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 identifies the verb 'Report' and the resource 'OpenPeppol eDEC code list release version(s) currently configured locally.' It is specific enough to distinguish this from the sibling check/list operations, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 phrase 'currently configured locally' implies the tool is appropriate when an agent needs to know which code list version is installed locally. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to sibling codelist tools.

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