ANTT SIFAMA: Segunda Via de Boletos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that payment is required and data is non-confidential, but it does not describe output format, side effects, or failure behavior. It adds some value beyond annotations without contradicting 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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds context (payment, LGPD, source). It avoids fluff and is appropriately sized for its scope, though it could be slightly more structured to surface key operational details.

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 tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It fails to explain what each parameter means, how the payment model affects invocation, or what the expected return data is. The agent would lack essential information to correctly construct a request.

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 by explaining parameters. It does not mention any of the required fields (login_senha, tipo_multa, auto_infracao) or optional ones, leaving the agent without any guidance on how to fill them. The description only provides high-level context about the tool's purpose.

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: consulting second copies (Segunda Via) of ANTT tickets from an official source. It uses a specific verb (consultar) and resource (Boletos), distinguishing it from the generic sibling tools like authenticate and connect.

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 official boleto consultation and adds context about payment and LGPD, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling-specific differentiation is mentioned.

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 description goes beyond annotations by explaining the login flow: it generates a browser link, accepts a JWT token, and covers both session and permanent connection options. This fully discloses the tool's side effects and behavior, complementing the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 sentences, but the second is a run-on that packs many ideas. It is adequately sized for the complexity but could be split for better readability. It front-loads the primary use case effectively.

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 single-parameter auth tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the setup flow, the optional token, and the permanent vs session distinction. No missing information that would hinder an agent from invoking it 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining the optional 'token' parameter: it is the JWT pasted by the user for session-only login, and omitting it returns a link. It clearly maps the parameter to its purpose.

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 authenticate for MCP.AI IDE agents, providing a login link and token usage. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on login/token acquisition for this server.

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 explains two usage modes: permanent via config header or session-only via token argument, and when to call with no args to get a link. While it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools, it gives actionable guidance on how to use the tool effectively.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful conditional behavior beyond that, such as returning authenticated:true and empty pending[] when fully connected and connect_url when credentials are missing. This provides meaningful 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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and then adds only high-value conditional details. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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, the description explains the return behavior in two key states and names relevant fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url, per-install URLs). It could be slightly more complete by addressing partial connection states, but it is sufficient for a simple no-argument status tool.

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 rubric assigns a baseline of 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details and focuses on behavior, which is appropriate for a no-input read-only status tool.

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 'Returns connection status and URLs,' a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate by focusing on status reporting rather than performing authentication.

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 when to use the tool: when connection status or provider connection URLs are needed. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as authenticate, 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?

The description discloses behaviors beyond annotations: invoke runs one-off without installing, returns connect links for credentials, checkout links for empty wallets, requires workspace owner/admin for writes, and handles the prompt library. These details are not in annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and add significant context. There is 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 long and dense, covering many actions and behaviors. While the length is justified by complexity, it is a wall of text without visual structure (bullets/headings). It is front-loaded with purpose but could be more concise and organized.

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 complex tool with 23 params and no output schema, the description covers the main flows, permissions, and alternatives. It explains what invoke returns (links), what describe returns (profile), and distinguishes install vs invoke. It lacks detailed return formats for some actions but is reasonably complete given the scope.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for 23 undocumented parameters. It explains the core flow and key params (action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments) but leaves many others ambiguous (e.g., limit, message, immediate, conversation, prompt_vars). It adds meaning for the main action flow but is not exhaustive, earning a 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It specifies multiple actions (search, describe, install, invoke, etc.) and distinguishes from siblings by its marketplace scope, including a prompt library. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It also contrasts list_tools for currently callable tools, and mentions subscribe/cancel for billing, report_bug, and request_mcp for alternatives. This fully addresses when to use the tool and when to choose specific actions.

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, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description does not contradict these. It adds context about including the conversation array for reproduction, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens after submission (e.g., whether it creates a ticket, sends an email) or any side effects beyond the idempotent hint. With annotations covering safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose, and every word earns its place. It is concise and structured effectively.

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, no output schema, and annotations that are not rich (only idempotentHint). The description covers the purpose and hints at the conversation parameter's use, but does not explain the 'context' parameter or what happens after submission. For a simple reporting tool, this is adequate but not complete; it could mention expected outcomes or response behavior.

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. The description mentions 'conversation array' and 'recent messages for reproduction', which adds meaning to the 'conversation' parameter. However, it does not explain 'message' or 'context' beyond what the schema provides (type and default). The description adds some value but not full compensation for the 0% coverage.

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.' It uses a specific verb ('report') and resource ('bug'), and distinguishes from siblings by covering feedback and missing features, which are not implied by sibling names like 'authenticate' or 'show_version'.

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 when to use the tool (when reporting bugs or feedback) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides a hint about including the conversation array for reproduction, which gives some context, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons 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 the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description's use of 'Show' reinforces this, but it doesn't add additional behavioral details beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions exist.

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 with no redundancy or filler. It is direct and well-structured, conveying exactly what the tool does.

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 fully explains the tool's purpose given its simplicity. It doesn't specify the output format (e.g., string, object), but since no output schema is provided, this is a minor gap. For an informational tool, the description is sufficiently 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description and schema are perfectly aligned, and no additional parameter meaning is 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools, none of which relate to version display.

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 (when you need version info) though it doesn't explicitly state alternatives. Since no sibling tool serves a similar purpose, the lack of explicit when-not guidance is acceptable, but a mention of typical use cases (e.g., 'check compatibility') would improve it.

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. The description goes beyond that by specifying what state is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, tool counts), providing concrete 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and outcome. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and return 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?

For a simple, read-only tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully enumerates what is returned (MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts). This is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use the tool and what to expect.

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 schema is trivially 100% covered, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by clarifying what the returned state includes, which helps the agent know what to expect even though there are no inputs to explain.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which are action-oriented, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 this is used to inspect the toolkit's state, particularly when checking MCP connections or account bindings. It does not explicitly state when to avoid it or compare it to alternatives, but the read-only nature and clear return content give strong contextual guidance.

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