peppol_lookup_participant

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 openly states the lookup sequence and defines the outcome: registration status plus supported document type identifiers. It does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, but the described behavior makes that apparent.

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 tightly written sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the supporting technical process in the second sentence. There is no filler, and each sentence contributes meaningful information for tool selection and invocation.

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?

The description conveys the purpose, the lookup workflow, and what the agent can expect from the result. Since an output schema exists, return-value details do not need to be spelled out here. It could be slightly more complete with an explicit note about the production/test environment implications, but the schema already covers that.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters, including the identifier format and accepted environment values, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema supplies, which matches the baseline score of 3.

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: 'Check whether a business is registered on the Peppol network.' It then explains the two-step technical mechanism (DNS-over-HTTPS U-NAPTR lookup, then SMP service-group request), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like resolve_peppol_dns or peppol_directory_search.

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 purpose implies when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs to verify a participant's registration status or supported document types. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer for related lookups such as resolving endpoints or searching directories.

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