check_process_id_in_codelist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a check (presumably read-only) and mentions an environment variable requirement, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the environment variable is not set, whether the tool raises errors or returns a boolean, or any side effects. It adds enough context to understand the operation, but lacks depth.

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, two sentences, with no filler words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the prerequisite as a separate sentence. Every word earns its place, making it easily scannable.

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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and a key prerequisite. However, for a tool performing a validation check, it lacks detail on parameter semantics, return values, and error conditions. It's adequate but leaves gaps, especially given the sibling tools that check other codelists—it could benefit from clarification on distinctions.

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 0%, and the description only says 'a (scheme, value) pair is a recognized Peppol process identifier.' It doesn't explain what 'scheme' and 'value' mean as parameters, their expected formats, or examples. The schema just lists them as strings with no additional detail, so the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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's purpose: 'Check whether a (scheme, value) pair is a recognized Peppol process identifier.' This uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('Peppol process identifier'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'check_participant_id_scheme_in_codelist' and 'check_document_type_id_in_codelist' by referencing process identifiers. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from these siblings by 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 indicates a prerequisite: 'Requires EINVOICING_PEPPOL_CODELIST_DIR (see `list_participant_id_schemes`).' This provides clear context for usage and points to a related tool for setup. It doesn't state when NOT to use this tool relative to other codelist-checking siblings (like 'check_participant_id_scheme_in_codelist'), but the prerequisite and the likely tool family imply when it's applicable.

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