resolve_peppol_dns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it performs a raw U-NAPTR (SML) lookup without fetching the SMP service group, which is a key behavioral trait. It also implies a read-only operation via DNS. Additional details like error handling are not mentioned, but the essential behavior is transparent.

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, front-loaded with the purpose. The first sentence states the action, and the second adds purpose and behavior. No fluff or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It sufficiently covers the purpose and key behavioral constraint (DNS only, no SMP fetch) for a diagnostic tool. It lacks mention of potential failure modes, but for a simple DNS lookup, this is acceptable and not a significant gap.

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 schema fully describes both parameters (identifier and environment) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add param details. It adds no extra semantic information beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 it resolves the SMP hostname for a Peppol participant via DNS only. It specifies a precise action (resolve hostname) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like peppol_lookup_participant and peppol_get_service_endpoint by focusing solely on DNS resolution without fetching the SMP service group.

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 explains it is useful for diagnosing whether a participant is registered in the SML independently of SMP reachability, which gives clear context for when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternatives, but the diagnostic purpose is well conveyed.

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