list_participant_id_schemes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the dependency on an environment variable and notes redistribution rights, pointing to module docs for more details. It does not state potential errors if the variable is missing or whether data is cached, but as a read-only listing operation, these omissions are acceptable.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences clearly present the primary function and a required environmental prerequisite. No superfluous information is included, making it easy to parse.

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 description provides essential context about the data source and its licensing, and notes where to find further documentation. Since an output schema exists (though not shown here), not detailing the return structure is acceptable. The tool's simplicity and the given details make it sufficiently complete.

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 input schema includes one optional parameter 'active_only' with a clear description, and the schema coverage is 100% (the only parameter is documented). The tool description itself does not add further parameter explanations, so the parameter semantics rely entirely on the schema, which is adequate.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: listing Peppol participant identifier (ICD) schemes from a specific code list. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'check_participant_id_scheme_in_codelist' by using the verb 'list' and referencing the full collection.

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 provides a clear prerequisite (the EINVOICING_PEPPOL_CODELIST_DIR environment variable must point to a local copy), which guides when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use this to list all schemes, use check_* for specific verification'), though the sibling names imply this.

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