check_process_id_in_codelist

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the disclosure burden. It does reveal a meaningful dependency (the environment variable) and implies a read-only validation behavior via 'check'. It does not state what happens if the code list directory is absent or whether the lookup is local only, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 compact sentences, with the main operation first and the environment prerequisite second. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a two-string-parameter validation tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation and a critical environment dependency. It lacks usage differentiation from sibling tools, but the core invocation context is present. The output schema handles the return-value details.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does add the core semantic that scheme and value together form a Peppol process identifier, which is more than the schema provides. However, it does not define valid scheme formats, examples, or constraints, so its compensation is partial.

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 names a specific operation (checking a (scheme, value) pair) and the resource (Peppol process identifier), so its purpose is clear. It does not explicitly compare itself with sibling codelist checks, but 'process identifier' narrows the resource enough to separate it from other check 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 prerequisite (EINVOICING_PEPPOL_CODELIST_DIR) and points to list_participant_id_schemes, but never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as list_process_ids, check_document_type_id_in_codelist, or check_participant_id_scheme_in_codelist. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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