list_spis_use_case_ids

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool requires an environment variable (EINVOICING_PEPPOL_CODELIST_DIR), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what happens if the directory is missing, whether it performs network calls, or any side effects, so transparency is moderate.

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, consisting of two sentences, and is front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence adds a necessary prerequisite. There is no wasted wording, though it could be slightly more explicit about output format.

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 tool with one parameter, good schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is adequate. It provides the necessary context about the data source and prerequisite. It is not overly complex, so no additional detail is strictly required, making it complete for this 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 schema description covers 100% of parameters, describing 'active_only' as a boolean to omit deprecated entries. The description does not add further semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it fully relies on the schema for parameter meaning.

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 that the tool lists Peppol SPIS use case identifiers from the OpenPeppol eDEC code list, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_participant_id_schemes' or 'list_document_type_ids', though the resource is distinct.

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 implicitly indicates this is for listing SPIS identifiers, and the requirement for EINVOICING_PEPPOL_CODELIST_DIR is mentioned, which provides some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, so guidance is limited.

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