peppol_directory_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the authentication model ('Public, unauthenticated search') and reinforces the read-only search nature of the operation. It does not mention rate limits or result limits, but pagination fields and the output schema cover the result-shape side.

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?

Three concise statements with no filler. The one-line purpose is followed immediately by the most decision-relevant details: auth model, SMP boundary, and minimum filter requirement.

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 input schema is fully documented and an output schema exists, so parameter semantics and return values are covered elsewhere. The description supplies the missing contextual pieces: public authentication, domain boundary vs SMP lookup, and the cross-parameter precondition. Nothing essential for correct selection or invocation appears to be missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by imposing a cross-parameter constraint: at least one of q/participant/name/country/doctype must be supplied, which individual schema descriptions do not express. It does not clutter by repeating field descriptions.

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?

States a clear verb-resource pair: 'Search the Peppol Directory for registered participants.' The explicit 'no relation to SMP lookup' differentiates it from SMP-related siblings such as peppol_lookup_participant, peppol_get_service_endpoint, and resolve_peppol_dns.

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?

Provides useful usage context: the search is public/unauthenticated and is not SMP lookup. It also states a hard precondition that at least one of q/participant/name/country/doctype must be supplied. It stops short of naming a specific sibling to use for SMP resolution, so it is not fully explicit alternative routing.

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