list_participant_id_schemes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that the tool depends on a local code list export and is not bundled with the package, which is significant context. However, it does not describe what happens if the environment variable is missing, whether the tool performs any network access, or how filtering via active_only behaves at runtime.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then gives essential setup context. The second sentence is somewhat long but every part contributes necessary operational information, such as the environment variable requirement and the reason the data is not bundled. It is concise without losing important detail.

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 simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema present, the description is largely complete. The main missing piece is behavior under missing environment variables or invalid local data, but the prerequisite is clearly stated, and the output schema covers return structure.

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 single parameter active_only is fully documented in the input schema, including its default value and meaning. The description adds no extra parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clear, specific action: 'List Peppol participant identifier (ICD) schemes from the OpenPeppol eDEC code list.' This identifies both the verb and the resource scope, and differentiates it from sibling tools like list_document_type_ids and list_process_ids by naming participant identifier schemes specifically.

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 implies usage whenever an agent needs to list Peppol participant identifier schemes, and it provides an important precondition: the EINVOICING_PEPPOL_CODELIST_DIR environment variable must point to a local copy. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as check_participant_id_scheme_in_codelist, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria.

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