resolve_peppol_dns

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 clearly reveals the tool's scope boundary — DNS-only U-NAPTR lookup, deliberately not fetching the SMP service group — which is the key behavioral trait distinguishing it from sibling tools. It does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect behavior or failure modes, but the core boundary is well disclosed.

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 tight paragraphs, four sentences, no waste. The one-line summary is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the second paragraph adds the technical mechanism plus the diagnostic use case. 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?

For a 2-parameter diagnostic tool with a 100%-covered schema and an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, mechanism, scope boundary, and when to use it. The only notable gap is behavior on failure — e.g., what happens when a participant is not registered in the SML (e.g., DNS NXDOMAIN) — which would add further practical value.

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 schema fully documents both parameters: identifier ('Peppol participant ID or adaptable national identifier') and environment ('production' or 'test'). The description adds useful domain context (SML, U-NAPTR) but no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve the SMP hostname for a Peppol participant via DNS only.' It further differentiates itself from siblings like peppol_lookup_participant and peppol_get_service_endpoint by explicitly scoping the operation to 'the raw U-NAPTR (SML) lookup without fetching the SMP service group.' An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from the fuller lookup siblings.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'useful for diagnosing whether a participant is registered in the SML independently of SMP reachability.' This tells an agent exactly when this tool is the right choice. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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