CADIN Estadual

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

The description reveals behavioral traits beyond annotations, such as the distinction between permanent non-expiring connections and session-only logins, and that calling with no args returns a link. Annotations (idempotentHint) are consistent with this.

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 somewhat verbose and runs-on with multiple clauses and parentheticals. It packs useful information but could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the main usage scenarios, including the two authentication modes. It does not explicitly state return values, but 'get the link' implies the output, and no output schema is provided.

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 token parameter is explicitly described: 'paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "<jwt>" }'. Since the schema lacks descriptions, this fully compensates and adds meaning beyond the 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 via browser and obtain an access token. It specifies the verb 'log in' and the resource 'access token', but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like '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?

It provides clear context on when and how to use the tool: either by permanently adding a header to config or by pasting a token for a session-only login. It also explains the two call patterns (with token or no args), but does not explicitly mention when not to use 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: no credentials required, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, it consults credit bureaus and official bases, and clarifies LGPD compliance responsibilities. This exceeds the annotations' safety profile.

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?

Three focused sentences front-load the core purpose, then add operational and legal context. Every sentence provides necessary information; no 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?

Despite strong annotations and description, there is no output schema, so the description should describe what the response contains ('situação') but doesn't. It also leaves 'completo' unexplained. For a query tool, knowing the return shape is important.

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 covers 0% of parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that Cpf/Cnpj and Uf are used ('por UF'), but it doesn't explain the 'completo' parameter. It also says 'um CPF ou CNPJ' while the schema requires both Cpf and Cnpj, potentially confusing. Partial compensation.

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 checks the situation of a CPF or CNPJ in the CADIN database of state finance secretaries by UF ('Situação de um CPF ou CNPJ no Cadastro Informativo de Inadimplência (CADIN) das secretarias estaduais de fazenda, por UF'). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.).

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?

Provides clear context for use: hosted on platform, no credentials, prepaid credit per query, and requires a legal basis under LGPD. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but contextualizes when the tool is appropriate; sibling tools are clearly not 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful context about the outcome states (authenticated:true vs connect_url). It discloses what the return values mean, going beyond the generic safety hints, though it doesn't describe every possible field in the response.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then conditional details. No filler or repetition of schema/annotations. Every sentence adds value about behavior and output.

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 status tool with no output schema and no parameters, the description provides enough detail about the two primary states. However, it could be more complete about the exact structure of 'per-install URLs' or the pending array, but given the simplicity and good annotations, it is adequately 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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to compensate for parameter documentation, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. It doesn't add parameter-level detail since there are none, which 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 connection status and URLs, distinguishing it from sibling 'authenticate' which likely initiates authentication. It specifies a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'), and the conditional behavior further clarifies what it does.

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 about when it returns different results (e.g., when credentials are missing), which implies its use case as a status check. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as saying 'use authenticate for establishing connections.'

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?

While annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.), the description adds substantial behavioral context: invoke runs tools one-off without installing, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, requires retry after user acts, and clarifies that install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel are writes requiring owner/admin. This goes well beyond annotation hints and covers auth, payment, and side effects.

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 contains highly valuable information but is a dense, unstructured paragraph with many run-on clauses. It front-loads the core purpose and flow, but the sheer volume of actions and prompt-library details would benefit from bullet points or clearer separation. Every sentence adds substance, but the presentation hurts scannability.

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 high complexity (14 action values, no output schema, minimal annotations), the description is remarkably complete: it covers discovery, execution, installation permanence, auth/payment link flows, permission requirements, installed-status flags, and the prompt library. It lacks explicit return-format details and error/retry nuance, but for a hub tool it provides enough context to act.

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 description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does explain the central action parameter and flow (search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, cancel, list_tools, prompt actions). However, many remaining params (limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, prompt_targets, etc.) are not explicitly mapped to their meanings, leaving gaps for a tool this broad.

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 official mcp.ai marketplace' — the catalog of every MCP/tool and the way to run them. It explicitly distinguishes the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and differentiates from sibling tools by positioning itself as the meta-level discovery/execution hub.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and notes that list_tools lists what is callable right now. It also provides alternatives and exclusions, such as using request_mcp when nothing fits, and flags workspace owner/admin requirements for writes.

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 idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the reproduction requirement via the conversation array, but does not explain what happens after reporting (e.g., ticket creation), auth requirements, or side effects. With annotations covering basic safety, 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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the key usage instruction. 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 simple reporting tool, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not mention what the tool does with the report (e.g., creates a support ticket), how the conversation array should be formatted (e.g., JSON string as implied by default '[]'), or any potential response. The lack of these details makes it 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 must compensate. It explains the purpose of the 'conversation' parameter (for reproduction). The required 'message' is self-evident, but 'context' remains unexplained. The description adds some meaning but not for all 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 purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and this function is distinct from siblings like 'marketplace' 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?

The description implies when to use: when the user wants to report a bug or provide feedback. It also provides a specific usage guideline ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but none are obvious among the siblings.

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 and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't contradict them. However, it adds no additional behavioral detail beyond stating that it shows versions, offering no extra context on side effects, output format, or error cases.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words 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?

The tool is extremely simple: no parameters, no output schema. The description tells the agent exactly what information is returned (platform and adapter versions), which is sufficient for this level of 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 input schema has zero properties, and the parameter count is 0, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to document parameters, and it doesn't.

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 the specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource as 'current MCP platform and adapter versions,' which distinguishes it from other tools that might handle different resources.

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 information is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'toolkit_info' or 'marketplace.' The description only states the function, not the appropriate 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 fully covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact type of state that is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), going beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists, and the added detail is meaningful for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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-paced sentence that front-loads the main action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific components. Every element contributes meaning, and there is no filler or redundancy. Ideal conciseness for an information 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description fully specifies what an agent can expect. It enumerates all four categories of state information, making the tool's purpose and return contents unambiguous. There is no missing context that would prevent correct invocation or interpretation.

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 carries no burden. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details. It adds value by describing the output domain, which is more relevant than parameter semantics for a parameterless 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 uses a clear, specific verb ('Returns') and a well-defined resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates exactly what information is included (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or show_version, which serve entirely different purposes.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool: whenever an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's current configuration or status. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but its unique scope makes the intended context obvious. A minor improvement would be explicit guidance like 'Use this to check setup before connecting or authenticating,' but the current wording provides clear context.

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