list_participant_id_schemes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses an important environmental dependency: a local copy of the eDEC GeneriCode export must exist and EINVOICING_PEPPOL_CODELIST_DIR must point to it. It also notes the data is not bundled and points to a module docstring for further details, which is genuinely informative beyond a trivial 'list' statement.

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 compact and well-structured: the main purpose appears first, followed by the crucial configuration requirement. The second paragraph is dense but each clause earns its place, especially the pointer to the module docstring for setup instructions. There is no redundant filler or repetition of schema content.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema and one optional parameter, the description is largely complete: it states the data source, the required environment variable, the non-bundled nature, and where to find more details. It does not explicitly describe failure behavior if the env var is unset, but the dependency is clearly surfaced and the module docstring pointer covers deeper setup context.

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 fully covers the single optional parameter active_only, including its default and semantics. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to re-explain the parameter. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema is doing the heavy lifting and the description adds no supplemental parameter detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('Peppol participant identifier (ICD) schemes from the OpenPeppol eDEC code list'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_document_type_ids and list_process_ids, and from the check_* tools that test membership rather than enumerate entries.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever a consumer needs to enumerate Peppol participant identifier schemes. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer an alternative, such as check_participant_id_scheme_in_codelist, nor does it mention exclusions or related tools. The prerequisite about EINVOICING_PEPPOL_CODELIST_DIR is useful but not a usage-vs-alternative guideline.

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