peppol_lookup_participant

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 states that the tool performs a DNS-over-HTTPs U-NAPTPR lookup followed by an SMP service-group request, revealing the network-dependent and multi-step nature of the operation. It does not discuss failure modes, rate limits, or whether the operation is strictly read-only, but the word 'lookup' and the described flow strongly imply a safe 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds precise technical context about the lookup mechanism and expected result. Every part contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It covers the essence of the operation, the protocol steps, and the result type. It could still be more complete by noting network reliability implications or how the 'environment' parameter affects the lookup, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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%, and both parameters (identifier and environment) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('whether a business is registered on the Peppol network'), then explains the underlying mechanism and the concrete outcome: registration status and supported document type identifiers. This clearly separates it from siblings like resolve_peppol_dns or peppol_get_service_endpoint, even without naming them.

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: when you need to determine if a participant is registered on Peppol and what document types they support. However, it does not state explicit exclusions or mention sibling alternatives such as resolve_peppol_dns or peppol_directory_search, which would help an agent with tool selection.

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