peppol_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It goes beyond a simple 'sends an invoice' by disclosing the steps: SMP lookup, ebMS3/AS4 envelope construction, and credential use. It does not mention irreversibility or delivery side effects, but the transmission intent is explicit, making this reasonably transparent.

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?

Two clear sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence gives the essential purpose, and the second adds meaningful operational process detail. The description is well front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool is a high-stakes external transmission operation with 8 parameters. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description omits useful preconditions such as SMP discoverability, environment selection, and the relationship between sender_id and the signing credentials. It also does not connect to related lookup tools like peppol_lookup_participant or peppol_get_service_endpoint, which could be prerequisite steps.

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 schema documents all 8 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond referencing the supplied signing credentials, which map to certificate and private key params. It does not need to compensate for missing schema coverage because coverage is 100%.

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: 'Send a UBL/CII invoice to a Peppol participant via AS4.' It clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from invoice creation, validation, and lookup tools among the siblings.

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 intended use is clear from the description: use this when an invoice document needs to be transmitted to a Peppol participant. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but none of the sibling tools perform this exact sending function, so the context is sufficient.

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