CEPIM (Entidades Impedidas)

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, reducing the burden. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the permanent vs session nature and the no-arg behavior. No side effects or failure modes are described, but the annotation coverage makes this acceptable. No contradiction.

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 structured with a clear main action followed by the permanent and session options. It is slightly verbose but every clause contributes useful information, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers both usage modes and the no-arg behavior. It does not detail error cases or the link's destination, but these are not essential for the tool's scope. Overall 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 optional property 'token' with no description. The description fully compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT copied from the browser and that it can be omitted to get a link. This gives the agent essential 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: it authenticates an IDE agent by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. The action and resource are specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'connect', so it misses the full 5.

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 instructions with two modes: a recommended permanent configuration via header and a session-only token input. It specifies the call format for both token and no-arg cases, but does not offer explicit exclusions or contrast with 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 establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: no credentials required, pay-per-query model, data is public and not confidential, and LGPD compliance responsibilities. This goes beyond the structured 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, with four sentences each serving a purpose: stating the function, explaining hosting/payment, clarifying data nature, and noting LGPD responsibility. It is directly front-loaded with the purpose, 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?

For a simple query tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary function, input, cost, and data sensitivity. However, it omits an explanation of the 'completo' boolean parameter and possible response details, which would enhance completeness. Overall, it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly indicates the main input is CNPJ ('a partir do CNPJ'), but it does not explain the optional 'completo' parameter or provide format details. This partial explanation adds some value but leaves ambiguity for the optional 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 function: 'Verifica se uma entidade privada sem fins lucitativos consta no CEPIM' (checks if a non-profit entity appears in CEPIM). It uses a specific verb ('verifica') and resource ('CEPIM'), and distinguishes from sibling tools which are platform-level actions (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?

The description provides context on when to use the tool: it is hosted by the platform, requires no credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credit. It also clarifies the data is public access. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, which are not needed given the unrelated 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?

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context about the return states: 'authenticated:true' with empty 'pending[]' when connected, versus 'connect_url' when credentials are missing. This enhances transparency beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 that cover both success and missing-credential cases without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's 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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return values for both possible states (all providers connected vs credentials missing). Given the zero-parameter simplicity, this is a complete and well-rounded description.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and no gaps exist in this area.

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 'Returns' with a clear resource: 'connection status and URLs'. It differentiates from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than initiating authentication, so the purpose is 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 this tool is for checking connection status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. No direct comparison or exclusions are provided, making the guidance only implicit.

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?

Despite annotations already indicating non-read-only and open-world behavior, the description adds critical context: invoke runs tools one-off without registering, returns connect/checkout links in specific scenarios, requires owner/admin for writes, and describes the retry flow. These behavioral details go well beyond the annotations and help the agent anticipate 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 is information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it packs multiple ideas into long sentences and includes shorthand like 'pontualmente' without immediate explanation. Still, every sentence provides value and the structure follows the search-to-invoke flow.

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 thoroughly covers the main workflow and key constraints, including auth, billing, and the prompt library. But it omits several enum actions like 'resume' and doesn't mention the meaning of 'limit' or 'immediate,' so a few branches remain under-specified.

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 coverage, the description compensates by explaining the central 'action' parameter and key values like tool_id, prompt_vars, and prompt_slug. However, many parameters (limit, immediate, tier_slug, conversation) receive no explanation, leaving a gap for a 23-parameter 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 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them,' establishing a specific verb+resource. It further details the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like authenticate or connect by being the central catalog and 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?

The description explicitly advises 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT,' giving clear selection criteria. It also explains when to use list_tools ('lists what is callable right now') and distinguishes billing actions, providing actionable alternatives and scenarios.

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 false and destructiveHint false. The description adds the instruction to include conversation for reproduction, but does not discuss side effects, auth requirements, or what happens after submission. It also doesn't clarify the idempotentHint annotation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with purpose and a single instructional addition. 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it doesn't explain the return behavior, the required message field, or the context field, and the conversation type mismatch creates confusion.

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. It explains the 'conversation' parameter (though calls it an array while schema types it as a string), but does not clarify the required 'message' parameter or the 'context' parameter. This is 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 uses a specific verb 'Report' and lists the resource (bug, missing feature, feedback), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or 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?

It gives clear context for when to use (to report issues or feedback) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since no sibling is similar, this is acceptable.

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, covering safety. The description adds what specific versions are shown (platform and adapter), which is useful context but does not go beyond annotations in terms of behavior or 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 is a single, direct sentence with no extraneous words. It fully captures the tool's function in minimal space.

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—no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations—the description is complete. It tells the user exactly what to expect: current MCP platform and adapter versions.

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 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description correctly does not add parameter details because none exist, matching the baseline of 4 for a 0-parameter 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 specific verb 'Show' and a clear resource: 'current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which serve 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 implies usage when version information is needed. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but none of the sibling tools are related to versioning, so the context is 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds value by detailing the contents of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is useful behavioral 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 front-loads the primary action and then provides a clear, structured enumeration of the return contents. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

As a simple read-only info tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool returns and the components of that state. It is complete for this complexity level.

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 property list is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description is not required to add parameter info, and the 0-parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates exactly what that includes: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect, authenticate, and report_bug, which are action-oriented.

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 on what the tool does and implies when to use it (whenever toolkit state info is needed), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tools like connect and authenticate are obviously different, but no explicit exclusion is given.

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