Get Peppol Codelist Version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so reasonably by stating the tool reports locally configured versions, which implies a read-only local lookup and no external network dependency. It does not explicitly mention side-effect safety, but the verb 'Report' and the local scope make the read-only nature clear enough.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to identifying what the tool does and where it operates.

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 zero-parameter local lookup tool with an output schema available, the description is complete. The agent can invoke it correctly without needing additional parameter details, and the local scope is explicit.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description's mention of the resource and scope is sufficient.

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 operation as reporting the OpenPeppol eDEC code list release version(s) and scopes it to the local configuration. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_en16931_codelist_version by specifying a different code list family.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_en16931_codelist_version. It only implies that it is appropriate when the locally configured OpenPeppol eDEC version is needed, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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