Get Peppol Document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds workflow context (processed document after submission), the checking of delivery status, and notes zone requirements for some regions, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, split into a concise intro, usage context, and a short args list. It doesn't waste words, though the args list somewhat repeats schema information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description doesn't fully clarify what the tool returns—whether it's the document content, delivery status, or both. It hints at this via 'check its delivery status' and the response_format parameter, but a more explicit description of the return structure would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 80%, and the schema documents most parameters. The description adds a valuable link for uuid (from pop_create_peppol_invoice) and hints at zone requirements, but these are also present in the schema. The response_format is only described as 'Output format,' adding minimal value.

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 'Retrieve a Peppol document from the network by UUID,' which clearly specifies the verb, resource, and key identifier. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pop_get_sdi_document by focusing specifically on the Peppol network.

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?

It explicitly states 'After a Peppol invoice is submitted, use this tool to retrieve the processed document or check its delivery status on the Peppol network,' providing a clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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