peppol_get_service_endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses DNS resolution, SMP metadata fetching, the redirect behavior where redirect_url is set and endpoint_url is None, and the one-hop limitation with a spec reference. This gives valuable behavioral context, though it does not cover failure modes or error handling.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides dense but relevant behavioral detail. The description is compact and avoids filler, though the redirect explanation is somewhat long and could be split for clarity.

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?

With an output schema present and only three parameters, the description covers the key edge case (SMP redirect) and gives a spec reference. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling DNS/lookup tools, but for a straightforward endpoint-fetch operation it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning around document_type_id as the key used for service metadata lookup, but identifier and environment are already sufficiently described in the input schema and receive no additional semantics here.

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: 'Fetch the AS4 endpoint for a Peppol participant's document type.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and is distinct from sibling tools like resolve_peppol_dns or peppol_lookup_participant, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool when you need the AS4 endpoint for a participant document type. The description explains the internal resolution flow but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like resolve_peppol_dns or peppol_lookup_participant, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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