peppol_get_service_endpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It details the internal workflow (DNS resolution then service metadata fetch) and precisely describes the redirect edge case: `redirect_url` set, `endpoint_url` None, and a hard limit of one redirect hop per SMP 1.4.0 §3.2. This is explicit, operational context that goes well beyond the schema.

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 the primary action front-loaded and the critical redirect caveat placed immediately after. Every clause adds relevant information; there is no filler 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?

For a tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the full workflow and a significant non-obvious edge case (redirect handling). It does not mention error behavior when DNS resolution or SMP fetching fails, but given the output schema exists and the parameter schema is complete, the core operational knowledge needed to invoke correctly is present.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description references `document_type_id` in the workflow and contextualizes it as the target of metadata fetching, but adds no new parameter-level syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the AS4 endpoint for a Peppol participant's document type.' It clearly states the tool's objective and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resolve_peppol_dns by mentioning the DNS resolution step, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 purpose sentence implies the tool is for endpoint discovery, and the technical detail about DNS resolution suggests how it works. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over similar siblings like resolve_peppol_dns or peppol_lookup_participant. A short 'use this when...' phrase would elevate it.

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