peppol_send

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key steps: SMP lookup, envelope construction, and transmission using signing credentials, which is useful. However, it does not mention error handling, failure modes, idempotency, or the irreversibility of sending. It also does not clarify if the operation has any side effects beyond transmission. This partial transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, instantly front-loading the main purpose. It contains zero filler and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's operation. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (8 params, 5 required) and existing output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the end-to-end process and references the signing credentials. It omits details about environment |(test/prod) and response format, but those are covered in the schema. It could mention prerequisites like network access or timeout behavior, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope and usage.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already states; it only references 'supplied signing credentials' which map to certificate_path and private_key_path but adds no new semantic detail. It does not clarify relationships between parameters or provide usage tips beyond the schema.

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's function: sending a UBL/CII invoice to a Peppol participant via AS4. It names the verb (Send), the resource (invoice), the target (Peppol participant), and the protocol (AS4), distinguishing it from sibling lookup and validation tools like peppol_get_service_endpoint and check_participant_id_scheme_in_codelist.

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 implies the tool is for sending invoices, contrasting with lookup/validation siblings. It mentions that it performs the SMP lookup internally, suggesting when not to use separate lookup tools, but it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need to actually transmit an invoice' or list exclusions. The context is clear enough for selection, though explicit 'when not to use' guidance is absent.

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