check_participant_id_scheme_in_codelist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the environment-variable dependency, which is meaningful, and the check semantics imply a read-only operation. But it does not mention behavior on missing environment variables, invalid ICD formats, or whether the lookup is local vs. remote.

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 no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated in a separate sentence. Every element earns its place.

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 output schema exists, return values do not need to be described. The description covers the input format, the purpose, and the required environment variable. It is slightly incomplete only in not addressing error/edge-case behavior, but for a simple predicate tool this is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain the `icd` parameter. It does this well by specifying the 4-digit ISO 6523 format and giving an example ('0208'). This is exactly the semantic detail the schema lacks.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and a precise resource: a 4-digit ISO 6523 ICD code against the Peppol scheme codelist. The example '0208' removes ambiguity, and the focus on participant ID schemes distinguishes it from sibling codelist-checking 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 mentions the required EINVOICING_PEPPOL_CODELIST_DIR environment variable and points to list_participant_id_schemes, which is useful prerequisite guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling check_document_type_id_in_codelist or check_process_id_in_codelist; the usage context is implied rather than stated.

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