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 transparency burden. It clearly signals a read-only reporting action ('Report') and discloses that the value is based on local configuration rather than a remote source. It does not detail return shape, but the output schema can cover that.

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 sentence with no filler, and the key subject ('OpenPeppol eDEC code list release version(s)') is front-loaded. 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?

For a zero-parameter, local read-only status check, the description is nearly complete. It correctly frames what is being reported and where the data comes from, and the output schema can document the exact return structure. The only minor gap is not explicitly contrasting it with the EN16931 codelist version sibling.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so the schema is fully self-describing and there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description adds no contradictory or unnecessary parameter information.

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?

Description states a clear verb ('Report'), a specific resource ('OpenPeppol eDEC code list release version(s)'), and the local scope ('currently configured locally'). It is easy to distinguish from the sibling get_en16931_codelist_version because the description explicitly names the eDEC code list.

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 case—checking the locally configured eDEC code list version—is clear from the description and the tool name. It does not explicitly offer when-not-to-use guidance or point to the similar EN16931 tool, but the OpenPeppol eDEC mention gives enough context to select it appropriately.

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