check_participant_id_scheme_in_codelist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal an important prerequisite (EINVOICING_PEPPOL_CODELIST_DIR) and implies a read-only boolean check, but it doesn't describe error behavior, return format, or side effects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the description alone is still fairly thin.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and input format are front-loaded, and the prerequisite/environment-variable note is placed separately and clearly.

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 one-parameter predicate with an output schema, the description covers the input format and the key prerequisite. The reference to `list_participant_id_schemes` is slightly vague but still provides a path for an agent to discover more context. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 only says `icd` is a string, but the description adds that it must be a 4-digit ISO 6523 ICD code with the example `0208`. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and gives enough format information for an agent to construct a valid argument.

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 states a specific action and resource: checking whether a 4-digit ISO 6523 ICD code is a recognized Peppol scheme. This is clear and more specific than generic ICD checks like `check_icd_code`, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative to distinguish itself from siblings.

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 intended use is clear: validate a participant identifier scheme code against the Peppol codelist. It adds a prerequisite (environment variable) and points to the companion `list_participant_id_schemes` tool, giving an agent useful context for when to invoke this tool, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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