peppol_get_service_endpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and delivers. It discloses the two-step resolution process (DNS -> service metadata), the redirect edge case (redirect_url set, endpoint_url None), and the one-hop limit with a spec citation. This goes far beyond a generic fetch description and preempts the most likely failure mode.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then the process, then the critical edge case. Every sentence earns its place, and the spec citation is compact. No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema is present, so return values are largely covered, and the description usefully highlights the redirect behavior with endpoint_url/redirect_url. The only gap is explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings, but the purpose alone covers most of that. For a single-purpose lookup tool, this is nearly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no significant parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; it mentions document_type_id only in passing. It does not explain identifier format or environment specifics, but those are already described in the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource pair: 'Fetch the AS4 endpoint for a Peppol participant's document type.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like resolve_peppol_dns and peppol_lookup_participant, which focus on DNS resolution or participant data. The reference to document_type_id further narrows scope.

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 purpose statement implicitly tells an agent when to use this tool: whenever the AS4 endpoint for a participant's document type is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or give exclusion criteria, relying on the name and sibling list for disambiguation. Only implied usage guidance, not explicit routing.

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