List Spis Use Case Ids

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It is transparent that this is a read-only listing operation ('List'), identifies the data source code list, and discloses the environment variable dependency. It does not spell out error behavior if the variable is missing, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient.

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 two sentences with no filler. The operational purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is placed immediately after, making it easy for an agent 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?

The tool is low-complexity: one optional boolean parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema is present. The description covers what the tool lists, where the data comes from, and the required environment setup, so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the single active_only parameter is already documented in the input schema with its default and meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it neither needs to compensate nor adds value beyond the schema.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List Peppol SPIS use case identifiers from the OpenPeppol eDEC code list.' It names a distinct code-list domain (SPIS use cases) and source, separating it from sibling list tools such as list_process_ids, list_document_type_ids, and list_participant_id_schemes.

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 provides a clear prerequisite by stating EINVOICING_PEPPOL_CODELIST_DIR is required and points to list_participant_id_schemes for context. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so usage guidance is mostly implied by the purpose.

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