peppol_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the transformation (serialized to UBL) and transmission mechanism (PeppolTransmitter), and credential requirements. However, it lacks details on idempotency, error behavior, or side effects.

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 concise sentences that front-load the main action and protocol. Every sentence adds value: action, technical detail, and prerequisite information. No wasted words.

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 complexity (nested invoice object, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: protocol, format transformation, and credential setup. It could mention expected response or error handling but is still fairly complete.

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 75%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for each parameter. It explains the overall process but not parameter-specific semantics.

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 action ('Send'), the resource ('ZUGFeRD invoice to German Peppol participant'), and the protocol ('via AS4'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like invoice_convert or peppol_check by focusing on Peppol transmission.

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 mentions prerequisites (signing credentials set as environment variables) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. There is no comparison to sibling tools.

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