peppol_directory_search

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by stating that the search is public and unauthenticated, which is important for an agent deciding how to invoke it. It also clarifies that this is not an SMP lookup, preventing a subtle misuse. It doesn't discuss pagination or rate limits, but the output schema and parameter descriptions cover most operational details.

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: three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the access mode and the essential parameter constraint. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, a rich schema, and an output schema, the description covers the most important contextual gaps: public access, non-SMP scope, and the required-filter constraint. It could additionally name the sibling for SMP lookup, but the explicit 'no relation to SMP lookup' warning largely compensates.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by specifying the non-obvious requirement that at least one of q/participant/name/country/doctype must be supplied, which is not enforceable in the schema since all parameters are optional. This helps the agent avoid calling the tool with no filters.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Peppol Directory', 'registered participants'), immediately clarifying what the tool does. It further distinguishes itself by explicitly stating it has 'no relation to SMP lookup', which separates it from sibling tools like peppol_lookup_participant.

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 clear context: this is a public, unauthenticated directory search. It also states a critical usage constraint: at least one of q/participant/name/country/doctype must be supplied. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool for SMP lookup, so the guidance stops short of fully routing the agent to the correct sibling.

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