peppol_get_service_endpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and adds valuable specifics: it states that redirects result in redirect_url being set and endpoint_url being None, and that callers must not follow more than one redirect per SMP 1.4.0 §3.2. This is more than a generic fetch description, though it omits other possible behaviors like error cases.

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 tight sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and a specific edge case supported by a spec reference. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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 small, well-schematized tool with an output schema, the description covers the core workflow, an important redirect edge case, and a caller constraint. It could mention error/response details, but the output schema reduces that need.

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 has 100% description coverage, including defaults and formats for environment and document_type_id, so the schema already provides the baseline. The description only adds minimal semantic reinforcement by mentioning that service metadata is fetched for *document_type_id*.

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 is led by a specific action and object: 'Fetch the AS4 endpoint for a Peppol participant's document type.' It clearly identifies the resource (AS4 endpoint) and scope (participant + document type), and this distinguishes it from siblings like resolve_peppol_dns or peppol_send.

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 conveys clear usage context by outlining the DNS-to-service-metadata resolution flow, so an agent knows this is the endpoint lookup step. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, stopping short of the 5-level guidance.

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