AdvBox

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context about following the official API and using 'extra' for unspecified fields, but it does not disclose side effects, validation behavior, or error conditions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and then provides essential field guidance. Every word contributes value, with no repetition 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify return values or expected behavior, but it does not. It also leaves out required fields, validation rules, and concrete examples, relying on 'official API' without providing those details. The 'extra' catch-all helps but is not enough for a create operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists example fields (name, type, cpf/cnpj, email, phone) and mentions sending the rest via 'extra', which adds some meaning. However, it does not explain formats, requiredness, mutual exclusivity of cpf/cnpj, or how 'extra' should be structured.

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 clearly states 'Cria um novo contato/cliente' (creates a new contact/customer), using a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like advbox_get_customer, advbox_list_customers, and other create_* 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 usage is implied by the verb 'Cria' and the resource 'contato/cliente', but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions. It does not mention when not to use it or compare with sibling create tools.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, implying a non-read operation without destructive effects. The description adds that fields follow the official API and that settings are needed for IDs, but it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations imply. It adds minimal context beyond 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 a single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the action. It efficiently includes a pointer to settings and a note about named fields and extra. However, it lacks structured breakdown, but given its brevity, it earns a high score.

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 lawsuit creation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain required fields beyond referencing the official API, nor does it mention response format or potential pitfalls. It relies heavily on external settings without detailing how to use them effectively.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'campos nomeados + extra' and points to settings for IDs, but it does not explain the meaning of 'number' or the structure of 'extra'. The guidance is too vague to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action: 'Cria um processo' (Creates a lawsuit), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling create tools by focusing on 'processo' (lawsuit) and references the official API and settings for IDs.

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 instructs to use advbox_settings to discover type/responsible IDs, providing a clear preparatory step. It implies create vs. update context through the tool name and sibling list, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it. The guidance to send via named fields plus extra is actionable but could be more explicit about alternatives.

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

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description's 'Adiciona' merely confirms a write operation without adding new behavioral context. Missing details include whether duplicate movements are allowed, what side effects occur, authorization requirements, or what response is returned.

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 concise and front-loaded, with no filler words. Its brevity is partly responsible for leaving important details unstated, but the structure itself is efficient for a simple creation tool.

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 no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a vague reference to the official API for the process link, the description is insufficient for reliable invocation. The tool is one of many similar create_* siblings, so more detail about required fields and expected behavior is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely says to link the process via an official API field and use 'extra' for remaining fields. It does not name the concrete field names or specify the required shape of 'extra', leaving the agent unable to construct a correct invocation confidently.

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 clearly states that the tool adds a manual movement to a process ('Adiciona uma movimentação manual a um processo'), which distinguishes it from sibling create tools like advbox_create_customer or advbox_create_lawsuit. However, the critical process-link field is only referenced as 'campo conforme a API oficial', leaving the exact binding mechanism underspecified.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. Sibling tools such as advbox_lawsuit_movements or advbox_last_movements could serve as read/alternative paths, but no comparisons or usage context are provided.

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

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description aligns by saying 'Cria um novo post/anotação'. It adds a small hint about official API field mapping via named fields + `extra`, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error behavior, or what the response contains.

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 only two short sentences and front-loads the primary action first. Every phrase earns its place, though it is slightly underspecified for parameter-rich contexts.

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 no output schema and sparse parameter semantics, the description should clarify return values, required fields, or failure modes; it does none of that. The tool is simple, but the description still leaves too much unspecified for confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it only says fields are 'conforme a API oficial via campos nomeados + `extra`' without explaining what `text` means or how to populate `extra`. This leaves the agent with almost no guidance beyond the raw property names.

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 Portuguese description 'Cria um novo post/anotação' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (post/note), which directly distinguishes it from sibling create_* tools for customers, lawsuits, movements, and transactions. It is specific and unambiguous about the tool's core purpose.

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 is implied by the creation verb and resource name, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites/exclusions. It is minimally sufficient, not more.

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

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context such as authentication requirements, persistence side effects, validation behavior, or response handling. 'Campos conforme a API oficial' is parameter-related, not a behavioral disclosure.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds field mapping context. Every phrase adds value with 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?

This is a create operation with no output schema and sparse annotations. The description leaves significant gaps: no required fields, no field value constraints, no creation-side effects, and no guidance on handling API-specific extra fields. It is minimally viable but incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and no enums or required fields. The description mentions example fields (type, value, due_date) and hints that `extra` holds additional official API fields, and 'receita ou despesa' gives a clue about type values. However, it does not explain formats for value/due_date, constraints, or how extra merges with named fields.

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 clearly states 'Cria um lançamento financeiro (receita ou despesa)' – a specific create action on a financial entry/transaction. This distinguishes it from sibling create tools like advbox_create_customer or advbox_create_lawsuit, and from advbox_get_transaction/advbox_list_transactions.

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 is implied by the verb 'Cria' and the resource, and siblings include update/get/list variations, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral details such as pagination, filtering behavior, or return format, but it does not contradict 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value: 'Lista aniversariantes' states the action and resource, and the parenthetical clarifies the purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, and the tool has three undocumented parameters including a nested 'query' object. The description does not explain pagination, filtering, or what data is returned, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it does not mention 'page', 'page_size', or 'query' at all. 'page' and 'page_size' are somewhat inferable by name, but the 'query' object is completely opaque and may accept arbitrary filters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lista' (lists) and identifies the resource as 'aniversariantes' (birthday celebrants), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like advbox_list_customers or advbox_get_customer. The parenthetical 'para campanhas de relacionamento' adds useful purpose context.

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 phrase 'para campanhas de relacionamento' indicates the intended use case for relationship campaigns, which is clear contextual guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing bulk execution capability ('accepts ids for batched execution'), which is not captured in annotations and is useful for the agent. It does not contradict 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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then the bulk note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. Ideal structure for quick parsing.

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?

Despite being a get-by-ID tool, the presence of a 'query' parameter adds complexity that the description does not address. There is no output schema, so the agent does not know what 'dados completos' includes. The bulk support note lacks details (e.g., limits, format of ids). The description is too sparse for a tool with three parameters including an object.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the parameters. It partially explains 'id' (single lookup) and 'ids' (bulk), but completely ignores the 'query' object parameter, which is a significant gap. The agent cannot infer what 'query' expects or how it relates to the other parameters.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves complete contact data by ID, with a specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('dados completos de um contato por ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like advbox_list_customers (which likely lists many) and advbox_customers_birthdays, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for fetching a contact by ID, and the mention of bulk support suggests using it when multiple IDs are available. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like advbox_list_customers or exclude cases (e.g., when only partial data is needed). Guidance is present but not fully articulated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds the bulk support behavior ('accepts ids for batched execution'), which is beyond annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations. However, it doesn't disclose details like error handling or return format, but with read-only annotation already provided, the bar is lower. So 4 is justified.

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 very short: two sentences. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The bulk support is added as a second sentence. No unnecessary words. It earns its place. Slightly under-specified, but for its length, it's concise. Score 4.

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 tool has 3 parameters, one required, and one parameter is a nested object (query) with zero explanation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention what the query object does, nor does it provide details about the response (no output schema). For a 'get' tool with batch support and a query object, the agent would need more info. Also, the bulk support is mentioned but not elaborated (e.g., how errors are handled). So completeness is low. Score 2.

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 0%, meaning the description provides no parameter explanation. The description only mentions 'id' and 'ids' for bulk support, but the schema shows a 'query' parameter as an object, which is completely unexplained. With zero coverage, the description should compensate, but it only covers id/ids, not query. This is a significant gap because the query object likely allows complex filtering, which the agent needs to know. So score 2.

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 clearly states this tool fetches a lawsuit by ID and returns complete data. It also mentions bulk support. The purpose is clear and distinct from sibling tools like advbox_list_lawsuits (which lists multiple) and advbox_get_customer (different resource). Slight deduction for not explicitly contrasting with sibling list/get tools, but the verb 'Busca' (searches/fetches) and 'por ID' specify the operation.

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 implies usage: use this tool to fetch a single lawsuit by ID, with option for batch via 'ids'. It does not explicitly say 'when not to use' or mention alternatives, but within the sibling set, it's clear that this is the get-by-ID tool. Sibling names like advbox_list_lawsuits suggest alternatives, but not explicitly stated in the description. So guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's burden is lightened. It adds useful context about batched execution, but does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any rate/access limits.

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 only two short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and adds bulk support as a second item. No redundant content is present.

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 tool has three parameters including an unexplained 'query' object and no output schema. The description covers only the basic ID lookup path, leaving the semantics of the 'query' parameter and expected return behavior unstated, which is incomplete for a full understanding.

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 description adds meaning for 'id' and 'ids' ('by ID', 'batch execution'), but the schema has 0% description coverage and the 'query' object parameter is completely undocumented. The description does not adequately compensate for the low schema coverage across all three parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Detalha uma transação por ID' (details a transaction by ID). It also distinguishes this from sibling list operations by focusing on retrieval by specific ID, and explicitly mentions bulk support via 'ids'.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a transaction ID and need its details, especially with batch support. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose wording makes the context obvious relative to sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it provides a recent summary ('resumo recente'), which gives some insight into the response content but not into behaviors like pagination or query handling. Minimal added value beyond 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?

Single clear sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded. Efficiently states purpose.

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 a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the query object structure or expected response format, and given multiple related tools, more context is needed for correct usage.

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 0% and the description does not mention any parameters (page, query, page_size). The query object is completely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct valid inputs.

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?

Description states 'Última atualização de cada processo (resumo recente).' which clearly indicates it retrieves the last update for each process. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like advbox_lawsuit_movements which might also provide movement data, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as advbox_lawsuit_history or advbox_lawsuit_movements. The description simply states what it does without context on prioritization or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'complete history' scope and bulk execution behavior, but says nothing about pagination, filtering, or return shape beyond the schema fields.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a key capability. There is no filler or repetition, making it highly concise and scannable.

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?

Despite having pagination parameters, a nested query object, bulk mode, and no output schema, the description does not explain return values, query filter usage, pagination behavior, or how bulk results are structured. Annotations cover safety only, leaving the description incomplete for effective tool selection.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for explaining parameters. It only clarifies lawsuit_ids for bulk execution and implies lawsuit_id is the key identifier; page, page_size, and query remain unexplained and their semantics are not compensated for.

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 identifies the resource ('processo') and scope ('Histórico completo'), making it clear this tool retrieves the full history of a lawsuit. 'Bulk support' further distinguishes it from single-item getters. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', and does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools such as advbox_lawsuit_movements or advbox_last_movements.

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 bulk support mention provides some usage context: the tool can handle multiple lawsuit_ids in one call. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the movement-specific siblings, and no exclusion criteria or alternatives are named.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is established. The description adds the bulk execution behavior via lawsuit_ids, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or output format, so value beyond annotations is limited.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loading the primary purpose. Every phrase contributes, and the bulk support note is valuable without adding noise.

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 tool has 5 parameters and nested objects, yet the description omits details on filtering (query), pagination (page/page_size), and the return structure. Without an output schema, this leaves the agent guessing about expected results. The description does not adequately support the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only mentions lawsuit_ids for bulk support. It leaves page, query, page_size, and lawsuit_id semantics unexplained, including the nested query object. This is insufficient for an agent to construct correct calls.

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 clearly states 'Lista todas as movimentações de um processo' (lists all movements of a lawsuit), using a specific verb and resource. The scope ('todas') distinguishes it from siblings like advbox_last_movements, which implies a limited set. The bulk support note adds further clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like advbox_last_movements or advbox_lawsuit_history. It only mentions bulk execution capability, which is a feature, not a usage criterion. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the basic listing behavior; it does not mention pagination behavior, query semantics, or result shape. There is no contradiction with annotations, but minimal added value.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the examples are useful and the syntax is clean. It is slightly under-specified for the number of parameters, but the conciseness itself is strong.

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 7 parameters, a nested `query` object, no output schema, and zero schema param descriptions, the tool needs richer contextual guidance. The description only covers rough filter intent and omits pagination behavior and query object structure, making it only minimally 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 0%, so the description needed to compensate. It does name some filter fields (name, cpf, cnpj, email) and points to `query`, which provides partial clarity, but it leaves page/page_size and the structure of the `query` object unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lista' with a clear resource 'clientes/contatos' and mentions advanced filtering, which makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It is naturally distinguished from single-record siblings like advbox_get_customer and from other list 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 implies usage for listing/filtering customers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain the relationship between the separate filter params and the `query` object. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the behavior those hints describe. The description adds useful context about the 22+ filters and common query keys, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, or how multiple filters combine.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently communicates what the tool does and the main filtering mechanism.

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 read-only list/search tool with annotations and 7 parameters, the description gives a reasonable overview but omits pagination details, the full filter list, and any expected output shape. The presence of page and page_size parameters makes the absence of pagination guidance more noticeable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by listing common fields inside the query object: numero, parte, cpf, cnpj, responsavel, status, comarca, uf, datas. However, it does not explain top-level parameters cpf, cnpj, number, status, page, page_size, or how they relate to the query object.

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 clearly states 'Lista/busca processos' (lists/searches lawsuits) and mentions the resource and filtering capability, distinguishing it from siblings like advbox_get_lawsuit, create tools, and movement/history tools. It lacks an explicit comparison to alternatives, so it does not reach the highest bar.

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 phrase 'Filtros comuns via query' implies the intended use for searching/filtering lawsuits by number, party, CPF, CNPJ, status, etc. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or a pointer to advbox_get_lawsuit for retrieving a single known lawsuit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds the clarification that 'annotations' means 'tasks/notes,' which is helpful, but it doesn't disclose other behaviors like pagination or return format. No contradiction with 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 one short, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose directly. No wasted words and all content is relevant. It 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?

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only states the general purpose. It omits details about pagination, the query object's structure, and what the response contains. With annotations covering safety but not usage details, the description is insufficient for effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (page, query, page_size). With zero coverage, the description must compensate but fails entirely to explain what these parameters do or how the query object should be structured.

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 clearly states the tool lists posts and annotations (tasks/notes), using a specific verb ('List') and a distinct resource. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools for customers, lawsuits, and transactions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states what it does without mentioning contexts, exclusions, or alternatives. For a tool among many list operations, explicit usage context is missing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the filter scope (date/type/status) but does not disclose pagination behavior, result shape, or any other runtime characteristics beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and a key feature.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, no enum constraints, and no schema-level descriptions, the one-line description is not sufficient. It omits pagination semantics, query object structure, return value expectations, and further filter details, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity for correct invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate, but it only mentions that the 'query' object holds filters. It does not clarify the meaning of the other six parameters, such as page, page_size, start_date, end_date, type, and status, and may even confuse by implying filters are only inside 'query' when several top-level fields also represent filters.

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 clearly states a specific action (list) on a specific resource (financial transactions) and mentions the available filter dimensions (date/type/status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like advbox_get_transaction (singular retrieval) and advbox_list_customers/advbox_list_lawsuits/advbox_list_posts (different resource types).

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 implies usage for retrieving multiple financial transactions with optional filters, and contrasts implicitly with get_transaction. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no pagination notes, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the useful behavioral detail about bulk execution through lawsuit_ids. It does not, however, describe pagination behavior, result shape, or how the listing behaves when no parameters other than the required one are provided.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, the first stating the core purpose and the second highlighting bulk support. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant wording, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Although the annotations mitigate safety concerns, the tool has 5 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema. The description does not explain the query object, pagination, expected response structure, or how these publications differ from other legal-case listing tools. An agent would lack sufficient context to invoke the tool with meaningful filters.

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 0%, meaning the description must carry the burden of explaining parameters. The only parameter semantics explicitly mentioned is that lawsuit_ids supports batched execution. The required lawsuit_id, the intentionally generic query object, page, and page_size are not explained at all, leaving the agent guessing about filtering, pagination, and request formatting.

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 begins with 'Lista as publicações oficiais de um processo', a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating what the tool does. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools such as advbox_list_customers or advbox_lawsuit_movements because it focuses specifically on official publications of a legal process.

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 core use case is clear: list official publications for a lawsuit. The additional sentence 'Bulk support: accepts lawsuit_ids for batched execution' provides practical guidance for choosing this tool for batch operations. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternative list/history tools.

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

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

Annotations already mark as readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying exactly what data is retrieved (all IDs and settings categories), expanding beyond annotation metadata with useful behavioral context.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage, no filler or repetition. Highly efficient.

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 covers purpose and content adequately, but lacks clarity on the query parameter and return format (no output schema). For a config lookup with one optional filter, it is minimally viable but leaves the agent unsure about filtering or result structure.

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 0% and the description does not mention the optional 'query' parameter at all. With 0 params required and a flexible object type, the agent receives no guidance on how to use the query filter, creating a significant gap.

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 clearly states the tool fetches all account IDs and settings, listing specific categories (users, sources, task types, phases, process types). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling list tools that return individual entities.

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?

Explicitly advises usage to 'discover the IDs required by create/update', giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not state exclusions, but the context of sibling tools makes its purpose clear enough.

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

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, but the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: partial update semantics ('Envie só os campos a alterar') and batched execution via 'ids'. It does not fully explain batch failure behavior or return/error details, but it goes beyond what the annotations provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no filler. The bulk support detail is separated cleanly and 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?

The description covers the main update and bulk scenarios, but it leaves ambiguity about how id and ids interact, especially since id is required in the schema. It also does not enumerate the accepted named fields or describe the output/return behavior, despite there being no output schema to compensate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies id for single update, ids for batch, and extra for changed/custom fields, but the phrase 'nomeados + extra' implies named updatable fields that are not actually present in the schema. The structure of extra is also left undefined, which is a meaningful gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Atualiza um processo existente por ID' (updates an existing lawsuit by ID). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling create/get/list lawsuit tools, and the bulk note is still clearly about the same update operation.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to update an existing lawsuit by ID and send only the fields to change. It also hints at batch usage via 'ids'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint:false, idempotentHint:false, and destructiveHint:false, so the agent already knows this is a non-idempotent write operation. The description adds valuable context about partial updates (only changed fields) and batch execution via ids. No contradictions found.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes the critical usage note about partial updates. The bulk support is a separate, concise sentence. There is no fluff or redundancy, and every element adds value.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what updates can be performed, the partial update pattern, and batch support. It explains the id requirement implicitly and covers all parameter groups. It is complete for a straightforward update operation with no output schema or additional constraints.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It maps 'valor' to value, 'vencimento' to due_date, and 'status' to status, explicitly names 'extra' for additional fields, and mentions 'ids' for bulk. It also implies that id is the required identifier. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb 'Atualiza' (updates), the resource 'transação' (transaction), and the specific fields it can modify (valor, vencimento, status de pagamento). It also clarifies the operation is by ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_transaction and get_transaction, and from update_lawsuit which targets a different resource.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Envie só os campos a alterar' explains the partial update pattern, and it notes bulk support via ids. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare against alternatives, but the context is clear that this is for updating existing transactions.

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

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

Annotations include idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with. The description adds behavioral context: it explains what happens when called with no args (returns a link), with token (logs in), and specifies that token is a JWT. This goes beyond the annotations by describing the login flow and the token's nature, but does not contradict them.

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 a single, dense sentence that efficiently conveys multiple key points: target audience, login method, permanent vs session options, and two distinct invocation modes. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose, though it is slightly verbose, packing many ideas into one sentence without breaks.

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 tool's simplicity (single optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is quite complete: it covers the token format, the two modes (with/without token), and the permanent configuration alternative. However, it does not specify the output format or error handling, but with no output schema and a simple auth flow, this is acceptable.

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 description explains the only parameter (token) in detail: it should be a JWT pasted by the userebreak, and provides usage examples ('call with { token: "<jwt>" }'). With schema coverage at 0%, the description compensates by fully explaining the parameter's purpose and format, earning a high score despite the sparse schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to log in to the IDE via browser and obtain an access token. It specifies the action (authenticate), the resource (this server's config), and distinguishes from siblings by being the unique authentication tool among the listed 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 explicitly explains when to use the tool (after user pastes token or to get login link), provides alternatives (adding token to config header for permanent login vs pasting for session-only), and gives clear usage scenarios. It also contrasts with session-only vs permanent connection, fully covering when and how to use.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains the two possible return scenarios, including authenticated:true and empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url URLs when credentials are missing. It does not contradict 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 two tight sentences with the key purpose first. It uses no filler and every sentence adds information about return behavior.

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 tool is simple, has no parameters, no output schema, and safe/read-only annotations. The description covers both main states and names the key response fields. It is complete enough for an agent to know what connectivity check results to expect, though it could mention whether the result is a single object or contain possible provider names.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline of 4 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 action ('Returns connection status and URLs') and clearly identifies the resource: connection/authentication status for the toolkit and installs. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like authenticate and advbox_* by describing a read-only status-check behavior rather than a mutation or listing operation.

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 clearly implies this tool is for checking whether all providers are connected and for retrieving connect URLs when credentials are missing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use connect versus authenticate or other sibling tools, nor does it provide 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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

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

Even though annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, the description goes well beyond these by detailing that invoke works without installation, returns connect/checkout links, that install makes permanent changes, that writes require owner/admin, and that prompt links open without login. It adds significant behavioral context without contradicting 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 a verbose, single-paragraph wall of text covering the entire marketplace and prompt library. It is information-dense but not front-loaded or broken into logical sections, making it harder to scan. It could be trimmed and structured with bullet points or paragraphs per action group.

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 tool's complexity (14 actions, 23 params, no output schema), the description covers the major behavioral flow and edge cases (auth, payment, permissions) but omits per-parameter details and error handling. It is not fully complete; a user would still need to guess the meaning of many parameters. The high-level context is strong, but the parameter gap makes it incomplete.

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?

With 23 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. While it explains the 'action' enum and some high-level roles (e.g., tool_id, mcp_id, arguments), it leaves most parameters like limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_body, prompt_vars, cancel_reason, etc. unexplained. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the tool as the mcp.ai marketplace, with a specific verb-resource structure (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., advbox_* tools) by focusing on catalog discovery and tool execution, and it explicitly lists the core actions and the flow.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use invoke vs. install ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'), explains the flow for auth and payment, and notes permission requirements for writes. It clearly contrasts alternatives like list_tools and covers when each action is appropriate.

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

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description does not provide extra behavioral context beyond what annotations state. It mentions to include conversation for reproduction, which is a mild behavioral hint. No contradiction. Given annotations cover basic safety, the description adds acceptable context but does not detail any side effects or auth needs.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, with a quick usage tip. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 tool has a simple purpose but 3 parameters with no descriptions and no output schema. The description gives some guidance (include conversation) but misses explaining 'context' and 'message' formats. Given low complexity, it's adequate but not excellent.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'message' parameter (required) or 'context' and 'conversation' parameters. The description mentions 'Include the conversation array', but does not specify the format or purpose of 'context'. With 0% coverage and significant param explanation missing, the description does not compensate for schema gaps, earning a low score.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on create/get/update operations. The main verb 'report' plus the specific resources 'bug, missing feature, feedback' makes the purpose clear.

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 suggests 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' which gives context on how to use the tool effectively. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives, but that is not critical given the unique purpose of reporting issues. The 'send feedback' part broadens usage beyond just bugs, which add some context.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the key behavioral safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral details such as output format or side effects, which is acceptable for such a simple read-only tool but provides little extra context 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent version-reporting tool, the description is sufficiently complete. No output schema is provided, but the purpose and scope are clear enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Baseline 4 is appropriate because no parameter semantics are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This is distinct from the sibling tools, which are mostly advbox_* business operations or authentication/connection 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 purpose implicitly indicates this is for retrieving version information, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. It does not mislead, but it also does not tell the agent when to prefer this over similar informational tools like toolkit_info.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the returned content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) but does not contradict annotations. It provides information beyond the annotations about what the 'state' includes, which is useful. No contradictions found.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state'), followed by specific elements of that state. No waste, concise, and structured effectively for quick understanding.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and relatively simple purpose, the description is complete. It clearly lists what the response will contain, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function. It could potentially describe the format or structure of the response, but with no output schema, the description provides adequate context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter detail. The description explains what is returned (the state) which compensates for the lack of parameters. Since there are no inputs, the description effectively describes the output semantics, giving it a high score per the rubric (0 params = baseline 4).

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns current toolkit state with specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). Verb 'returns' with a precise resource 'current toolkit state' distinguishes it from sibling tools which are domain-specific actions (e.g., advbox_* operations, connect, authenticate). Unlike siblings like 'show_version' or 'marketplace', this focuses on the overall toolkit state, making its purpose unique.

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 implies usage for checking toolkit state but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives. It doesn't mention when not to use it or provide alternatives directly. However, among siblings, there's no other tool that retrieves overall state, so the usage context is clear but not explicitly contrasted.

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