list_process_ids

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an environment-variable requirement and the 'List' verb implies a read-only operation, which is useful. It does not describe what happens if the environment variable is missing or whether entries are sorted/paginated, but the output schema covers return structure.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second gives the required setup with a pointer to a sibling tool. No wasted words and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple list operation with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It identifies the source data, the required environment variable, and how to find setup guidance. It does not mention alternative tools for process-ID checks, but that is more relevant to usage guidelines than completeness for invoking this tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the existing schema already documents the active_only parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter behavior beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Peppol process identifiers') and names the exact source code list ('OpenPeppol eDEC code list'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_process_id_in_codelist or list_document_type_ids.

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 a practical prerequisite (EINVOICING_PEPPOL_CODELIST_DIR) and points to list_participant_id_schemes for setup, which implies the intended context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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