List Participant Id Schemes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It meaningfully discloses that the tool depends on a local, non-bundled GeneriCode export via an environment variable, which is important failure context. It does not discuss error behavior or explicitly affirm read-only semantics, but 'List' makes the operation reasonably clear.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears in the first sentence, and the environment prerequisite and redistribution caveat appear in the second. Every clause earns its place, and the pointer to the module docstring is useful rather than padding.

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 list operation with an output schema, the description plus schema fully covers purpose, the single parameter, and the required environment setup. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether to call this tool and what precondition must be met.

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 covers both parameters effectively: there is only active_only, and it has a clear description. With 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to add parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb ('List'), a specific resource ('Peppol participant identifier (ICD) schemes'), and a source ('OpenPeppol eDEC code list'), so an agent can tell this apart from the sibling check tool. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the resource phrasing is specific enough to avoid obvious confusion with list_icd_codes or list_eas_codes.

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 clear operational context by requiring EINVOICING_PEPPOL_CODELIST_DIR to point at a local copy of the eDEC export, which is useful when deciding whether the tool is callable. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings such as check_participant_id_scheme_in_codelist or list_icd_codes; usage is mostly implied by the verb and resource.

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