list_spis_use_case_ids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a significant dependency: the EINVOICING_PEPPOL_CODELIST_DIR environment variable. But it does not mention what happens if that directory is missing, whether the data is read locally, or any ordering/filtering behavior, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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 two concise sentences: one states the purpose, the second states a requirement and points to a sibling for setup. There is no fluff and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple list-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: the data source and the required environment variable. It does not explain when to prefer it over related codelist tools, but it is otherwise complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 only parameter, active_only, is fully documented in the schema with its default value and effect. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource: it lists 'Peppol SPIS use case identifiers' sourced from the OpenPeppol eDEC code list. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list tools such as list_process_ids or list_document_type_ids.

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 usage by naming the resource, and it adds a key prerequisite by requiring EINVOICING_PEPPOL_CODELIST_DIR, even pointing to list_participant_id_schemes for setup. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some selection guidance to inference.

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