Resolve Peppol Dns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool performs a raw U-NAPTR DNS lookup and does not fetch the SMP service group, setting accurate expectations about scope and side effects. It does not discuss failure modes or network behavior, but the core behavioral boundary is well disclosed.

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 only two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and the second sentence adding a precise technical boundary and use case. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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 simple parameter set, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains what the tool does, what it deliberately avoids doing, and the diagnostic scenario where it is useful.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds high-level context about Peppol and DNS but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for identifier or environment.

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 and resource: 'Resolve the SMP hostname for a Peppol participant via DNS only.' It also distinguishes itself from similar tools by explicitly saying it does a raw U-NAPTR lookup without fetching the SMP service group, so an agent can tell it apart from fuller Peppol lookup tools.

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 gives a clear use context: diagnosing whether a participant is registered in the SML independently of SMP reachability. It implies a focused, low-level DNS-only check, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use them.

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