ANTT: Transporte Rodoviário Internacional de Cargas (TRIC)

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent; the description adds that it requires no platform credentials, costs prepaid credit per query, returns only public non-confidential data, and assigns LGPD data control to the client. This goes well beyond annotations and gives valuable 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?

The description is a single paragraph but front-loads the core purpose and compactly bundles payment, credentials, confidentiality, and LGPD. Every sentence adds unique information, though the structure could be slightly clearer.

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 one parameter and no output schema, so the description should explain what data it returns. It only says 'consulta informação' without specifying actual fields or structure, leaving a gap. However, it covers privacy and payment context, making it partially 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 schema has one required string parameter 'placa' with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention the license plate parameter at all, failing to explain its format, meaning, or any examples. With no schema documentation, the description must compensate, and it does not.

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 explicitly states it queries ANTT's International Road Freight Transport (TRIC) from an official source, with the verb 'consulta' and the specific resource 'TRIC'. It clearly distinguishes itself from unrelated sibling platform tools like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace'.

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 clear usage context: it is a paid per-query service hosted by the platform, requiring no platform credentials, and includes LGPD responsibilities for the client. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the conditions are specific enough to guide the agent.

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 the annotations by disclosing that no-args returns a login link, that config-based auth is permanent, and that token-based auth is session-only. It does not detail failure modes or response content, but for a simple auth tool with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the added behavior is meaningful.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by two clear usage paths. It is somewhat dense but every sentence earns its place by explaining a necessary part of the authentication workflow.

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-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the auth flow, both permanent and session modes, and the no-arg behavior. It does not explain return values or error conditions, but the tool is simple enough that the provided context is largely sufficient.

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 input schema only defines token as a string with no description, but the description fully compensates by explaining that token should be a JWT pasted by the user for session-only login, and that omitting token returns the login link. This provides complete semantic meaning for the only parameter.

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: authenticating an IDE agent to MCP.AI via browser login and an access token. It is specific about the auth flow and distinguishes itself from siblings like connect by describing browser login and token handling, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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: use the server config header for a permanent non-expiring connection, or paste the token for a session-only login. It also explains when to call with no arguments to get the login link, which gives clear context for when and how to invoke the tool.

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, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about return states (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url) but doesn't explain other potential outputs or error cases. With annotations, this is adequate.

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, concise, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It efficiently conveys states without waste. Slight improvement could be summarizing the return format more explicitly, but it's well-structured.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main states (connected and missing credentials) and mentions URLs. It could be more complete by detailing the exact structure of connect_url and per-install URLs, but it's adequate for a simple 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, and the schema coverage is 100% (since there are no params). The description adds value by explaining the behavior given different states (connected vs missing credentials), which is conceptually meaningful even though there are no 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 returns connection status and URLs, which is a specific resource (connection status) and distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate or show_version. However, it could be more precise about the tool's scope (e.g., checking all providers) but is adequate.

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 it (to check connection status) but doesn't provide explicit alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like authenticate exist, but no guidance is given on when to use connect vs. authenticate. This is sufficient but lacks explicit 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?

It goes well beyond annotations by revealing that invoke runs uninstalled MCPs one-off without bloating the tool list, may return a connect link or checkout/top-up link, and that writes require workspace owner/admin. None of this contradicts the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint 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 but information-dense, with the core flow front-loaded and no filler. It is slightly run-on, but the length is justified given the tool dispatches 14 actions and needs to convey permissions, auth/payment links, and prompt-library 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?

For a tool with 14 actions, 23 params, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the full workflow, one-off vs permanent install behavior, credential/payment link flows, owner/admin permissions, and the prompt library. Exact return shapes are not detailed, but the critical context is present.

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 params and 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well for the central action enum and key parameters like tool_id, arguments, prompt_slug, and prompt_vars. However, several params (immediate, tier_slug, conversation, cancel_reason, request_details, etc.) are left to inference, so the coverage is not exhaustive.

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 official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them,' then outlines the core search→describe→invoke flow. This establishes a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or toolkit_info.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Core flow: action=search ... describe ... invoke RUNS that tool,' and 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' while 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT.' It also explains when report_bug, request_mcp, subscribe/cancel, and search_prompts are 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 already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a practical hint about including conversation, but does not disclose side effects, confirmation, or rate limits. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not outstanding.

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-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary details. Every word 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 is simple with three parameters. The description gives the essential purpose and one parameter hint, but leaves 'message' and 'context' unexplained. Without an output schema, the description should clarify expected behavior more thoroughly, but it is adequate for a basic reporting 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of the 'conversation' parameter (for reproduction) but leaves 'message' and 'context' unexplained. The description partially covers parameter semantics but is incomplete.

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 (Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback) and the resource. It is not a tautology and is distinct from sibling tools which serve unrelated purposes (e.g., authenticate, marketplace).

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 clear context for when to use the tool (reporting issues or feedback) and includes an instruction to provide conversation for reproduction. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient given the unrelated sibling set.

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 the description need not repeat those. It adds that both platform and adapter versions are shown, but does not describe output format or other behaviors.

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, clear, and front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 version tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and behavior. No additional information is necessary.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially fully covered. The description mentions what is shown, which provides sufficient semantic context; baseline 4 applies.

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'), distinguishing it from unrelated siblings like authenticate or report_bug.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as toolkit_info; the usage is implied by the purpose rather than 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the return contents but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, auth requirements, or response format. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the key return components. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a status/read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully conveys what the agent will receive and the tool's purpose. Annotations handle side-effect safety, and the description clarifies the content scope, making it complete for its 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers semantics. The description appropriately focuses on the output rather than parameters. With no params to explain, the 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 clearly states the tool returns the current toolkit state and enumerates the exact components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This specific verb+resource phrasing makes its purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings like connect or authenticate.

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?

While the description doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, the clear focus on status/inspection strongly implies it's the go-to tool for checking toolkit state. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage, though it lacks explicit exclusions.

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