peppol_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool performs a multi-step outbound transmission: looks up the recipient's AS4 endpoint, builds the envelope, and sends it using signing credentials. This is meaningful behavioral detail beyond the name and schema, though it does not warn about irreversibility or production-environment consequences.

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: a single leading sentence names the action, followed by one sentence explaining the pipeline. No filler or repetition of schema field names, 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?

Together with a fully self-describing schema and an output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly: what it sends, to whom, via what protocol, and with which credentials. Minor gaps are the lack of explicit guidance on validation-before-send and any caution about production sends, but these are not essential to correct invocation.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents all eight parameters, including the distinction between test and production environments and the optional private key password. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, but it does not need to because the schema is complete.

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 ('Send') with a clear resource ('UBL/CII invoice to a Peppol participant via AS4') and outlines the mechanism (SMP lookup, ebMS3/AS4 envelope). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that validate, parse, or look up participants.

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 a UBL/CII invoice needs to be sent to a Peppol participant. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it, mention prerequisites such as prior validation, or contrast with alternatives like validate_invoice_ae or peppol_lookup_participant. Usage context is present but not explicit.

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