Peppol Get Service Endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the two-step resolution process and a critical edge case: redirects set `redirect_url`, leave `endpoint_url` as None, and callers must not follow more than one hop. This is meaningful operational context beyond a simple fetch.

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?

Three sentences with clear front-loading: purpose, process, and a notable redirect caveat. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 plus output schema cover the main flow and the redirect edge case, and the warning about redirect hops is essential for correct use. It could additionally mention error handling or empty-result behavior, but nothing critical is missing for a lookup tool.

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 only lightly reinforces that `document_type_id` selects the service metadata. It adds no new semantics for `identifier` or `environment` beyond what the schema already 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the AS4 endpoint for a Peppol participant's document type.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like resolve_peppol_dns or peppol_directory_search, which handle DNS resolution or directory searches.

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 the tool is used when you need an AS4 endpoint for a Peppol participant, but it never names alternatives or gives exclusion criteria. It describes internal steps (DNS resolution, service metadata fetch) rather than when to prefer this tool over related lookup or send tools.

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