check_participant_id_scheme_in_codelist

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that the tool is read-only, does not describe what happens when the code is not found (return value or error), and does not specify side effects. The requirement of an environment variable is useful but leaves significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that convey the core purpose and a critical prerequisite. There is no wasted wording, and the format is effective for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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 simplicity (single parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose and a key prerequisite. However, it lacks information about expected output structure or behavior in edge cases, but the output schema may partially compensate. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'icd', but the description explicitly defines it as a 4-digit ISO 6523 ICD code with an example, which compensates for the schema gap. It adds meaning beyond the raw 'string' type, so a 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 clearly states the tool checks whether a 4-digit ISO 6523 ICD code is a recognized Peppol scheme, using a specific example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_document_type_id_in_codelist by focusing on participant ID schemes and referencing list_participant_id_schemes for context.

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 usage by requiring the ICD code and mentions the prerequisite environment variable EINVOICING_PEPPOL_CODELIST_DIR, linking to list_participant_id_schemes for setup. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with siblings, but the reference to list_participant_id_schemes provides clear context.

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