peppol_check

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

The description discloses that it performs a live DNS and SMP lookup and returns registration status, document types, and endpoint URL. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job explaining the tool's behavior, though it could mention potential delays or network dependency.

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 concise with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds technical details. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 description covers the tool's action, return types (status, document types, endpoint), and participant ID formats, which is adequate for a simple check tool. However, without an output schema, it lacks specifics on the return structure (e.g., JSON format) and does not address error handling or use cases for the test environment.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that participant_id can be a Leitweg-ID, GLN, or VAT number and specifying the format. It also clarifies the overall purpose of the parameters, though it does not detail the 'environment' parameter explicitly.

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 states the verb 'Verify' and the resource 'German company registered on Peppol network', and specifies the method ('live DNS + SMP lookup'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (invoice_convert, invoice_create, etc.) by focusing on network registration checking rather than invoice processing.

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 implies usage before sending invoices ('can receive electronic invoices'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like invoice_validate for content checks, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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