get_peppol_codelist_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reports the locally configured version, implying it is a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it queries an external system, requires network access, or what the exact return structure is beyond the output schema existence. The description is clear but lacks deeper behavioral details like whether it reads from a local cache or performs a live check.

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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without excessive detail. It is concise and front-loaded with the main action. It does not include any fluff or redundant information, though it could be slightly more specific about the output format, but the output schema likely covers that.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with no parameters and has an output schema (though its contents are unknown). The description is adequate for a tool that simply reports a version. However, it lacks context such as whether this version is used for validation or how it might affect other operations, and it does not mention possible differences between multiple code lists or versions. Given the complexity is low, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description is sufficiently complete but could add a bit more context.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% since the schema shows no properties. Therefore, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description accurately covers the tool's input requirements by stating it reports the current configured version without any parameters.

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 purpose: reporting the OpenPeppol eDEC code list release version(s) currently configured locally. It specifies the resource (OpenPeppol eDEC code list) and the action (report version), which is distinct from sibling tools that focus on validation, generation, parsing, and other Peppol operations.

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 the tool is used to check the locally configured version of the code list, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'check_participant_id_scheme_in_codelist' suggest this tool is for version reporting, not for validating codes, which is a subtle distinction but not explicitly articulated.

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