peppol_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond a simple verb by describing the pipeline: SMP endpoint lookup, ebMS3/AS4 envelope construction, and transmission using signing credentials. This gives the agent a meaningful model of the operation, though it does not discuss failure modes or side effects in production.

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 concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then provide the essential process steps. Every clause adds useful information, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the transmission workflow and references signing credentials, which aligns with the certificate and key parameters. It could add a note about production versus test impact, but the schema already covers the environment parameter.

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 parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does not need to; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 specific action ('Send'), a specific resource ('UBL/CII invoice'), and a specific target ('Peppol participant via AS4'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are lookup, validation, and generation tools rather than transmission tools.

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 makes the use case clear: use this tool when you need to transmit an invoice to a Peppol participant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the contrast with siblings like generate_invoice_sg and validate_invoice_sg is implicit and sufficiently obvious.

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