get_peppol_codelist_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Report' and the qualifier 'locally' make clear this is a non-mutating, local configuration read, which effectively communicates the main behavioral trait. It does not elaborate on potential side effects, but none are implied for this simple query.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, then adds the key scope qualifier 'currently configured locally'.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It states what is reported and where the configuration is read from, and the output schema handles 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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The absence of parameter detail is appropriate, and the description correctly implies an unparameterized invocation.

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 ('Report') and a clearly defined object ('OpenPeppol eDEC code list release version(s) currently configured locally'). It distinctly identifies this as a version-inspection tool, differentiating it from sibling tools that check memberships or list code values.

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 phrase 'currently configured locally' implies this tool is for inspecting local OpenPeppol configurations, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when it is not appropriate, leaving usage mostly to inference.

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