list_spis_use_case_ids

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the environment requirement and implies a local read-only codelist lookup, but it does not describe side effects, output shape, or how entries are filtered beyond the schema. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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: the first states the purpose, the second gives the necessary prerequisite. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 single-optional-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is listed, from which code list, and what environment setup is needed. Return-value details are already handled by the output schema.

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 has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents active_only and its behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Peppol SPIS use case identifiers from the OpenPeppol eDEC code list'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling codelist-listing tools. It is concrete, not a tautology, and states exactly what the tool returns.

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?

It states a concrete prerequisite (EINVOICING_PEPOL_CODELIST_DIR) and directs the agent to a sibling tool for setup, giving practical usage context. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the resource-specific purpose makes when-to-use apparent.

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