resolve_peppol_dns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states what the tool does ('raw U-NAPTR (SML) lookup'), what it does not do ('without fetching the SMP service group'), and what it is useful for, leaving little ambiguity about side effects or scope.

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 front-loaded: the core action appears in the first line, followed by one tightly scoped sentence that explains the technical behavior and diagnostic value. Every clause contributes useful information and no filler is present.

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 the tool's modest complexity, complete parameter schema, and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the exact lookup mechanism, the boundary to SMP fetching, and the diagnostic use case. Nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains both 'identifier' and 'environment' fully. The description reinforces the identifier as a PePPol participant ID but does not add meaning beyond the schema, 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 and resource: 'Resolve the SMP hostname for a Peppol participant via DNS only.' It also clarifies it performs a raw U-NAPTR (SML) lookup without fetching the SMP service group, which separates it from sibling lookup and service-endpoint tools.

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 clear use case: diagnosing whether a participant is registered in the SML independently of SMP reachability. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'without fetching the SMP service group' wording strongly implies the intended narrow diagnostic scenario.

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