peppol_directory_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that the operation is public, unauthenticated, and search-only, and clarifies that it is unrelated to SMP lookup. It doesn't discuss response size or error behavior, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for describing return values.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the access mode, the SMP lookup caveat, and the required parameter constraint. Every sentence 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 full schema descriptions and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the search scope, access characteristics, a key non-relation to SMP lookup, and the mandatory parameter condition, which is all an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

All 8 parameters already have detailed schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable cross-parameter meaning by stating that at least one of q/participant/name/country/doctype must be supplied, which the schema alone does not express since required is empty.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Peppol Directory for registered participants.' It immediately distinguishes itself from SMP lookup with 'no relation to SMP lookup', which is important given sibling tools like peppol_lookup_participant and resolve_peppol_dns.

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 states that this is a public, unauthenticated search and explicitly excludes SMP lookup, providing useful routing context. It also gives a concrete precondition by listing which parameters must be supplied. It does not name alternative sibling tools directly, but the exclusion is clear enough.

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