check_peppol_participant_be

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details the internal method (DNS-over-HTTPS, U-NAPTR, SMP request) and output (registration status, document types, SMP hostname). However, it does not disclose error behavior, idempotency, or potential rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the purpose. It includes implementation details (BE-LC-1 resolved) that are somewhat verbose but add context. It is well-structured but could be slightly shorter without losing clarity.

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 simple input schema and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, how it works at a high level, and what it returns. Missing error conditions but overall complete for a lookup tool.

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 already describes the identifier parameter with an example. The description adds value by explaining that a plain VAT number is converted to the Belgian Peppol scheme, going beyond the schema alone.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Check whether a Belgian company is registered as a Peppol participant.' It is specific about the domain (Belgian, Peppol) and distinct from sibling tools like lookup_vat_be or validate_invoice_be.

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 explains the process and conversion of VAT numbers but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., lookup_vat_be for VAT number validation). No 'when not to use' or prerequisites are mentioned.

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