List Process Ids

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 clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and reveals the required environment variable, adding useful context beyond the tool name. It does not describe error behavior if the environment variable is missing, but that is a minor gap for a simple read tool.

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 primary action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite cross-reference is placed second, making the description easy to scan.

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 simple list tool, the description covers the data source and a required setup step, and the output schema covers return values. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the check_process_id_in_codelist sibling, but overall the context is sufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%; the only parameter active_only already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, which matches the baseline expected when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource: 'Peppol process identifiers from the OpenPeppol eDEC code list.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_process_id_in_codelist, which verifies a single identifier rather than listing them.

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 states a prerequisite (EINVOICING_PEPPOL_CODELIST_DIR) and points to list_participant_id_schemes for context, which gives some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus the sibling check_process_id_in_codelist or other list tools, leaving the selection to inference.

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