peppol_lookup_participant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the internal process (DNS-over-HTTPS U-NAPTR lookup then SMP service-group request), which adds useful context beyond the schema. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state side-effect freedom, rate limits, or error conditions.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a brief technical overview. No redundant info or fluff.

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 output schema is present, so return values are covered. The description includes the process steps and the result content, which is sufficient for a moderate-complexity tool. It could mention environment nuances or that the operation is read-only, but these are inferable from 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter detail, but the schema already explains the 'identifier' format and 'environment' default, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool checks registration status on the Peppol network and lists supported document type identifiers. It distinguishes from siblings like resolve_peppol_dns by focusing on registration rather than DNS resolution or endpoint retrieval.

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 clearly indicates when to use it (to verify registration status) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention when not to use it. The functional purpose is unambiguous, so an agent can infer usage context, though explicit alternatives would improve guidance.

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