Check Participant Id Scheme In Codelist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only validation operation and discloses an external dependency: EINVOICING_PEPPOL_CODELIST_DIR must be set. It does not mention failure behavior when the directory is missing, but the output schema covers return structure, so this is a solid level of transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The core purpose and example are front-loaded, followed immediately by the environment prerequisite. Every sentence adds meaningful information.

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 description covers purpose, input format, and a key prerequisite, and the output schema removes the need to document return values. However, it does not clarify how this tool differs from the sibling check_icd_code or the other codelist checkers, which is a meaningful gap in helping an agent select the right validator confidently.

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 provides only the parameter name icd with type string and no description, so the tool description must compensate. It does so by specifying that the value must be a 4-digit ISO 6523 ICD code and giving '0208' as an example, which clarifies format and leading-zero handling. This is strong compensation for the 0% schema coverage, though it could also explain non-recognized/error behavior.

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 identifies the action: checking whether a 4-digit ISO 6523 ICD code is a recognized Peppol scheme, with a concrete example. It is specific and understandable, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from the closely related sibling check_icd_code, so an agent might not know which validator to choose.

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 usage context is implied: call this when you need to validate a participant ID scheme code against the Peppol codelist. It also provides a useful prerequisite by mentioning EINVOICING_PEPPOL_CODELIST_DIR and pointing to list_participant_id_schemes, but it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like check_icd_code or the other check_*_in_codelist tools.

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