CIGAM

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: config header yields a permanent connection, while passing a token yields a session-only login, and no args returns a link. It does not fully spell out side effects or success/failure return values, but annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 dense and front-loaded, with no fluff, but the long single sentence with parenthetical clauses and multiple alternatives could be structured into clearer separate instructions. Still, every part adds necessary 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 one-parameter auth tool with no output schema, it covers the no-arg return (the link), the token-paste path, and the persistent-config alternative. It doesn't state the response on a token success/failure, but the invocation guidance is sufficient for an agent to call 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 0% schema coverage, the description carries the full burden for the optional `token` parameter. It explains that token is a JWT/access token pasted by the user and how to pass it, compensating well for the bare 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 identifies the tool as MCP.AI authentication for IDE agents, with a concrete browser-login + access-token flow and two invocation paths (no args for a link, token for login). This specific verb+resource is unambiguous and easily distinguished from the unrelated calculo_* sibling 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?

It explicitly differentiates the persistent config-header approach ('best... permanent, non-expiring') from the session-only paste/login path, and states exactly when to call with no args versus with { token }. This gives the agent clear selection criteria for both setup and invocation.

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 adds the list of returned fields (entradas, saídas, etc.), which is useful. However, it does not disclose any behavioral aspects beyond what annotations already state, such as pagination behavior or required parameters like the store (loja).

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, consisting of a single, front-loaded sentence. It avoids redundancy and directly states the tool's function.

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 the concise purpose, the description is insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain how filters work, what output format to expect, or how pagination is handled, leaving users with too many unknowns.

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 only hints at 'por período' (by period), implying the date parameters, but it does not explain the purpose of 'loja', 'page', 'limit', 'account', 'situacao', or 'numero_caixa'. With 8 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description fails to provide necessary semantic context.

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 it lists cash register closings by period for a store, specifying the fields included (entries, exits, cash fund, net sales, balance). It is specific about the resource and scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cigam_fluxo_caixa.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other cash-related tools, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or context where it's appropriate. It only describes what it does, not when to choose 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, destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is known. The description adds that it returns the invoices and a summary with quantity and total value, which is useful context about the return structure.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is compact and could afford a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 query tool with no output schema, the description gives a basic understanding of the return (NFs + resumo), but it lacks details on parameter requirements, date format, pagination behavior, or how it differs from similar tools. Given the complexity of 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, this is only minimally adequate.

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 only mentions 'por período' (by period) which relates to data_inicial/data_final, but it does not explain the meaning of loja, page, limit, account, or the date format. With 6 parameters, the description adds very little value beyond the schema types.

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 it returns purchase invoices ('notas fiscais de entrada do tipo Compra') for a store within a period, and mentions it includes a summary. It is distinct from siblings like cigam_vendas and cigam_notas_fiscais, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.

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 it is for querying purchase invoices by store and period, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over others like cigam_notas_fiscais or cigam_vendas. It also doesn't mention required parameters (loja) or that data_inicial/data_final are optional.

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, and the description's 'Consulta' aligns with these. The description adds some context about the gateway endpoint and auxiliary-list scope, but it does not go beyond annotations to disclose return format, pagination, authentication requirements, or rate limits, so the added transparency value is modest.

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, front-loaded sentences: the first defines purpose and scope, the second gives required inputs. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of annotations or unrelated 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?

The tool is simple, but the description is incomplete for reliable invocation: there is no output schema, no elaboration of the 'params' string format, no explanation of the optional 'account' parameter, and no guidance on when to use this generic tool versus the many specialized siblings. The description and schema also disagree on whether 'params' is required, creating ambiguity.

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 for parameter meaning. It only says 'Informe o guid e os params', which names two parameters and implies they are needed, but it does not explain what these values represent, what format 'params' should take, or what the 'account' parameter means. This is minimal compensation for a schema that provides no 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 a specific action ('Consulta genérica ao gateway do CIGAM (ObterCarga)') and the resource type ('listas auxiliares'), with concrete examples like 'planos de conta, formas de pagamento, marcas'. It differentiates itself from specialized siblings by being explicitly generic while still scoping its target.

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 gives useful context: this is for generic auxiliary lists and the user should inform 'guid' and 'params'. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the many specialized sibling tools, and one of its examples ('formas de pagamento') overlaps with an existing sibling name, so usage boundaries are only implied, not clarified.

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 that the tool lists accounts payable and mentions specific fields, which provides some behavioral context (what data is returned). However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or any additional side effects. Given the annotations, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 immediately states the primary action and scope. It contains no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it 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 tool has 12 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description gives a high-level overview but omits crucial details such as parameter formats, default values, pagination limits, or the exact structure of the return data. For an agent to correctly invoke this tool, it would need to infer too much from parameter names alone. The description is inadequate for a tool of this 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain any of the 12 parameters. The description mentions fields like 'Fornecedor, vencimento, plano de contas, nota fiscal/duplicata, valores, juros,' which might correspond to filters or outputs, but it does not map them to the actual parameters (e.g., loja, data_inicial, cod_fornecedor). The agent is left guessing at the meaning of parameters like 'situacao' or 'tipo_data'. The description fails 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: 'Lista contas a pagar por período' (lists accounts payable by period). It names the resource (contas a pagar) and the scope (by period). It also enumerates key fields returned, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cigam_contas_receber (accounts receivable) and cigam_caixa.

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 'por período' implies the tool is used for date-range queries, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are stated. The sibling list includes many related tools, but the description does not clarify selection criteria.

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, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds that it lists receivables by period, which is useful, but it omits any behavioral detail like pagination, output structure, or whether it respects date filters, so it adds only minimal extra 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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and quickly listing the data content. It contains no filler 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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is inadequate for an agent to understand how to construct valid calls. It lacks essential context on filters (e.g., paging, date ranges, account status) and the return structure, making it only partially useful.

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% — the description does not explain any of the nine parameters (loja, page, limit, account, situacao, tipo_data, data_final, cod_cliente, data_inicial). Since the description says nothing about these fields, the agent cannot infer their meaning or format, making parameter usage ambiguous.

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 the tool lists accounts receivable by period and mentions the included data fields (cliente, vencimento, forma de pagamento, etc.). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like cigam_contas_pagar or cigam_vendas, but it lacks a direct mention of scope (e.g., 'all accounts' or 'filterable'), so it is strong but not perfect.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus other receivable-related tools or the general reporting tool. It only describes what it does, not when to choose it over 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 cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the output structure (NFs + summary with quantity and total value) and clarifies the scope (store and period). No contradictions 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 a concise two-sentence overview that immediately states the main purpose and output. 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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on parameter semantics, pagination, account usage, and a more explicit explanation of the returned data, making it incomplete for an agent to use 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It only implicitly covers 'loja' and date range, but leaves page, limit, account, and date format unexplained. It adds minimal value beyond parameter 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 description clearly states the tool retrieves 'returns of a store per period' (invoices with return movements) and specifies the output includes NFs plus a summary. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cigam_vendas (sales) or cigam_compras (purchases).

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 return-related queries but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it list exclusions. The domain is inferable from the name and description, but no direct comparison is given.

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?

As anotações já declaram readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true e destructiveHint=false; a descrição agrega contexto comportamental importante: é uma operação lenta que gera um relatório, retorna job_id assíncrono, e traz apenas código de barras. Essas informações não são afirmadas no schema e complementam as anotações sem contradizer-las.

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?

O texto é compacto, sem redundância e cada frase sobe a descrição com uma informação útil: objetivo principal, performance e modalidade de execução, variação de entrada, conteúdo do retorno e limitação do resultado. Primeiro é uma frase resumo e os detalhes são imediatamente relevantes.

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?

A ferramenta tem 4 parâmetros, sem output schema e sem coverage no schema de descrição. Sem output schema, a descrição compensa bem ao explicar o que retorna (resumo com totais eamostra) e como obter um job_id async. Porém omite o significado de limit e account, criando pequenas lacunas que impedem a atribuição de 5.

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?

A cobertura do schema é 0%, então a descrição precisa compensar. Ela explica o significado de codigo_barra e aguardar_segundos em contexto operacional, mas limpa e account ficam totalmente indefinidos no input-schema e na descrição do texto, exigindo que o agente inferi-o. As explicações parciais elevam acima do nada, mas são insuficientes para um parâmetro quase sem cobertura no 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?

A descrição começa com 'Posição atual de estoque (saldo por código de barras)', definindo claramente o recurso consultado e a natureza da operação. Distingue-se dos irmãos ao delimitar o escopo (estoque), o modo de retorno (resumo ou saldo específico) e a limitação de trazer apenas código de barras, sem nome do produto.

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?

Explicita claramente quando informar codigo_barra para saldo específico e quando usar vazio para obter o resumo. Também orienta sobre o comportamento lento, o parâmetro aguardar_segundos e o caminho alternativo via cigam_job quando não se espera o relatório, tornando o fluxo de uso inequívoco.

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, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral value by stating it computes projected cash flow with a maximum 60-day window, and implicitly that it aggregates open receivables and payables. This exceeds the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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 focused sentence that conveys purpose, scope, and a limitation. It's front-loaded with the key information and has zero filler words, making it highly concise and 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?

The tool is a read-only projection report with straightforward inputs and no output schema, so the description covers the essential purpose and the only notable constraint (60-day max). Given the low complexity and strong annotations, the description is largely complete, though it could mention that output is a summary (receivables vs payables vs balance) which is already stated.

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 doesn't explain any parameters, but the tool is simple: 'loja' is self-explanatory as required store identifier, and data_inicial/data_final are clearly date-range bounds given the description mentions 'por período'. The description adds the 60-day window constraint, partially compensating for no param docs, but doesn't detail the data format or account 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 provides projected cash flow for a store over a period, comparing total receivables vs payables and projected balance. It names the specific resource (fluxo de caixa) and the core computation (receivables vs payables, saldo projetado), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cigam_contas_pagar, cigam_contas_receber, and cigam_caixa that track individual components.

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 financial projections over a period, but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like cigam_contas_pagar, cigam_contas_receber, or cigam_caixa. It does mention a 60-day maximum window, which helps set expectations, but lacks explicit alternatives 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description doesn't add any behavioral context beyond that. It doesn't mention that it supports a maximum 60-day window in the description (actually it does mention 'Janela máxima de 60 dias' explicitly), so that's a bonus. However, it misses other behaviors like authentication requirements or rate limits. Since annotations already cover safety, the score is adequate but not high.

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, one sentence, front-loaded with purpose. It efficiently conveys the main functionality and includes the key constraint of 60-day window.

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 returns payment mix data, the description provides basic info but lacks details about return structure (though no output schema exists). It also doesn't clarify filter parameters like account. The 60-day window is a positive, but overall it's a minimal viable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'período' which implies date parameters, and 'loja' but doesn't explain the 'account' parameter or the format of the dates. It adds some context but not enough to fully document all 4 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 it provides a mix of payment forms received by a store over a period, broken down by payment method, card brand, and acquirer. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like cigam_vendas or cigam_fluxo_caixa, which likely have different focuses.

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 implies usage for payment mix analysis by period, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this instead of other sales or cash flow tools. No exclusions or alternatives are 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?

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral detail: it mentions 'lists/searches' and lists returned fields, but does not explain pagination, filtering effects, or any side effects. Given the annotations, the description adds little beyond 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 very brief and to the point, with no unnecessary words. It could be structured better (e.g., separating the purpose from the returned fields), but it remains concise and focused without excess verbosity.

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 four parameters with no descriptions and no output schema, the description is highly incomplete. It fails to provide critical context about how parameters influence results, pagination behavior, or what the response format will be, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool 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?

The schema provides no descriptions for the four parameters (cnpj, page, limit, account), and the description does not explain their roles. There is zero semantic value added for parameter usage, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and purpose of each 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 it lists/searches registered suppliers and enumerates the fields returned (company name, trade name, CNPJ, address, contact, status), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling 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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as specific filter scenarios or when other supplier-related tools might be more appropriate. It does not mention any conditions or use cases beyond the general listing/searching intent.

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavior: each item contains days late and open value, sorted by most overdue, with default and maximum date-window constraints. 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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then item characteristics and ordering, then default/max window. Every sentence adds 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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, it communicates the main response contents and ordering well, but it omits pagination semantics, account filtering, and any explanation of the required store parameter. The annotations cover safety, yet the 60-day window constraint alone is not enough to fully specify usage across all six parameters.

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 clarifies the date-window behavior. The required 'loja' parameter, 'account', 'page', 'limit', and the exact roles of 'data_inicial'/'data_final' are left undefined, leaving significant parameter ambiguity for a six-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?

Clearly identifies the tool as overdue open accounts receivable ('Contas a receber vencidas e ainda em aberto'), explicitly scoping to delinquency. The mention of ordering by most overdue and item content ('dias de atraso e valor em aberto') makes it distinct from sibling tools like cigam_contas_receber.

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: overdue receivables with a default window of the last 60 days and a maximum 60-day window per query. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the top criterion for an explicit when/when-not statement.

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent hints), the description adds important behavioral details: inline waiting, no polling semantics, re-call condition, and bulk execution. These are not redundant and materially improve the agent's expectations.

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 paragraphs that deliver required information without padding. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds usage and bulk-support 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?

Given no output schema, the one description does not fully enumerate result shapes. However, it covers the critical mechanics: retrieval, wait, no-polling, re-call, and bulk usage, so it is largely complete for this simple 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?

With 0% schema_description_coverage, the description must compensate. It explains job_id, aguardar_segundos, and job_ids/bulk behavior clearly. However, the `account` parameter is not addressed, leaving a minor gap in an otherwise useful explanation.

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 ('Busca o resultado') and identifies a clear resource: an asynchronous job identified by job_id returned from another tool. It distinguishes this from domain-specific siblings by focusing on the generic job-result retrieval path.

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 explicit usage context: call it with a job_id from another tool, wait up to aguardar_segundos, and do not poll unless the status is running. It mentions bulk support with job_ids, but does not explicitly discuss when to use alternatives like cigam_resultado or cigam_relatorio.

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 clear. The description adds period scoping and lists the returned field types, but it does not disclose pagination behavior or any prerequisites, thus providing only marginal 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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and avoids fluff. It is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It names several output fields but leaves parameter behaviors, pagination, and filtering logic unaddressed, making it hard to invoke correctly without further documentation.

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 across 9 parameters, the description was expected to compensate but does not. It vaguely references 'period' and 'chart of accounts', but gives no explanation for required 'loja', pagination parameters, or filter semantics. The agent cannot determine how to set most parameters correctly.

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 financial transactions by period and enumerates key fields, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like cigam_fluxo_caixa or cigam_caixa, but the resource type is sufficiently specific.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., cigam_contas_pagar, cigam_fluxo_caixa). The description merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and 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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description is consistent and adds context about the returned fields, but 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 a single, concise sentence that clearly conveys the tool's primary function. However, it omits any mention of the parameter, making it slightly incomplete but not verbose.

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 is adequate for the core functionality, but the ambiguous 'account' parameter leaves a gap in understanding how to invoke the tool effectively. Completeness is partially addressed.

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 includes a single parameter 'account' with no description, and the tool description does not explain its purpose or expected values. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate.

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 CIGAM accounts connected to the install, specifying output fields (id, label) and the meaning of label. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other operations.

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 implies it should be used to retrieve available accounts, but it lacks explicit statements about when to use it versus other tools. However, the context of read-only listing is clear from the description.

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 cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it returns code, name, and CNPJ, and hints at the account context. It does not introduce contradictions and supplements the annotation with useful output details.

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 well-structured, delivering the key information in two short sentences without redundant wording or unnecessary 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?

Given the simple input (one parameter) and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and usage. It mentions output fields and how to apply the result, though it omits potential edge cases or error scenarios, which are not critical for basic 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 schema provides only the type for 'account' (string), and the description indirectly references it via 'a conta enxerga' (the account sees). This gives some semantic context but does not explicitly explain the parameter's format or purpose in detail.

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 stores/companies visible to the account, including specific fields (code, name, CNPJ). It distinctly identifies the resource and action, differentiating it from sibling tools that likely handle other data 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 explicitly mentions using the returned 'loja' value in other filters, providing practical guidance on when to call this tool. It implies it serves as a reference for subsequent operations, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to 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 declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds value by noting the tool returns specific invoice fields and is scoped by store and period, but it does not disclose behavior such as pagination, status filtering, or response format details.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It provides the most important information without 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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the purpose of pagination, filters, or account/referenca fields, and it leaves the response format ambiguous with 'etc.' This is inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly in varied scenarios.

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 clarifies the meaning of 'loja' and the period concept (data_inicial/data_final) implicitly via 'por período'. The remaining 7 parameters (page, limit, status, account, numero_nf, referencia) are completely unexplained, leaving major gaps.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lista' and identifies the resource as 'notas fiscais de uma loja por período', making the tool's function unambiguous. It also lists the key return fields (número, série, destinatário, valor, status, chave NF-e), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cigam_vendas or cigam_compras.

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 the tool is used to list invoices for a store within a time period, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. No alternatives are mentioned, and the 'when to use' is 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing grouping behavior (agrupa as vendas por destinatário/CNPJ-CPF) and ordering (ordenados por valor). It also implicitly indicates a filtered date range through 'no período,' offering additional 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and result. Every word 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?

With 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should provide substantial parameter context but does not. It lacks explanations for loja, account, top, and the date range parameters, making the tool difficult to invoke correctly without external knowledge. The output is also not described, though no output schema exists.

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 explain the parameters, but it only refers to 'período' and 'maiores compradores' without mapping to data_inicial, data_final, top, loja, or account. This leaves parameter meanings entirely undefined, failing to compensate for the 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 ranks clients by sales value over a period, groups by recipient/CNPJ-CPF, and returns top buyers ordered by value. It is specific and distinct from sibling sales tools, which focus on individual transactions or summaries rather than client ranking.

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 (ranking clients by sales), but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose. Given many sibling sales tools (e.g., cigam_vendas, cigam_vendas_resumo, cigam_vendas_por_dia), clearer differentiation would be beneficial.

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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: the operation is slow (~2 min), it returns a temporary 'arquivo_url', it may return a 'job_id' if not ready, and it supports batch mode. This adds significant operational transparency that annotations alone do not 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 concise and well-structured: three dense sentences convey purpose, async behavior, return values, examples, and bulk support. No redundant or filler 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 description is strong for an async, no-output-schema tool: it covers wait behavior, job fallback, return URL, examples, and batch mode. It falls slightly short by not specifying the exact response shape/status details or the semantics of 'account' and 'filtros', but overall it is sufficiently actionable.

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 compensates well by explaining 'report_id' with concrete examples, 'aguardar_segundos' as the inline wait period, and 'report_ids' as batch input. However, it does not add semantics for 'account' or 'filtros', so the compensation is not complete.

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: 'Gera um relatório do CIGAM' and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it is slow, produces an Excel file, and may return a job_id for later polling. It also gives concrete report_id examples, making the resource and scope 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 gives explicit guidance on when to wait inline via 'aguardar_segundos' and when to poll later using 'cigam_job' instead of repeatedly retrying. It also documents the bulk usage path with 'report_ids', providing clear when-to-use and when-to-use-alternative 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?

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description adds behavioral detail: revenue is net of returns, expenses come from financial postings by accounts, and expense detail is grouped by category. It does not mention output structure or pagination, but the calculation semantics are clearly exposed.

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 front-loaded sentence that moves from the general result concept to the exact components of the calculation. There is no filler, repeated wording, or unnecessary background.

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 report tool with no output schema, the description gives sufficient conceptual completeness: it names the store scope, the period framing, and the exact calculation behind the result. It leaves some optional parameter semantics to the schema, but an agent can understand what the tool returns and when it is relevant.

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 provides meaningful domain context for interpreting some parameters: 'loja' maps to the store, 'por período' maps to the date parameters, and 'plano de contas' gives meaning to 'account'. However, it does not directly document each parameter, the optional filtering behavior, or date formats, and schema description coverage is 0%.

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 a concrete deliverable: a simplified managerial store result for a period, and spells out the core formula (net invoiced revenue minus expense postings by chart of accounts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as cash-flow or sales reports.

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 'Resultado gerencial simplificado de uma loja por período' implies when the tool should be used, namely when a period-based store income/expense result is needed, rather than a cash-flow or sales breakdown. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as cigam_fluxo_caixa or cigam_vendas.

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 behavioral context by specifying the output structure (detailed NFs + resumo with quantity and total value) and clarifying the invoice type ('notas fiscais de saída do tipo Venda'), which goes 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 two short, focused sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the return summary without unnecessary verbosity, earning high marks for conciseness.

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 query tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear overview of the return format (NFs fields + resumo) and the main filtering criteria. It misses details on pagination and parameter formats, but these could be inferred from schema property names. Overall, it is reasonably complete for an agent to use correctly in common cases.

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 that the tool filters by store ('de uma loja') and period ('por período'), which maps to 'loja' and the date parameters. However, it does not explain the format of dates, pagination parameters ('page', 'limit'), or 'account', leaving gaps for half the 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: it returns sales invoices ('NFs de venda') for a store over a period, including fields (data, destinatário, valor) and a summary. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cigam_vendas_por_dia and cigam_vendas_resumo by specifying that it returns both the detailed invoices and the resumo for the period.

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 querying sales by store and period, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. With many sibling tools (e.g., cigam_vendas_resumo, cigam_vendas_por_dia), explicit guidance or exclusions would improve the score.

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 context about the output (daily series and summary), but does not disclose behaviors like date range handling, pagination, or empty data responses. 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 a single, concise sentence that packs essential information: the series content, the summary components, and the period qualifier. It is front-loaded and has 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 tool with 4 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and many similar siblings, the description is too brief. It leaves gaps about how to fill parameters, the order of the series, and what 'ticket médio' means precisely, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the 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%, and the description does not explain the parameters (loja, account, data_final, data_inicial). It only mentions 'período' in passing, without mapping to the date parameters or providing format expectations. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 provides a daily sales series with quantity and value by date, plus a summary with total and average ticket. It is specific about the resource, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like cigam_vendas or cigam_vendas_resumo.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cigam_vendas or cigam_vendas_resumo. The usage is only implied from the description, with no explicit context, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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 give readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context: it is a summary (Panorama) and does not list invoices. This aligns with the read-only annotation and adds meaningful detail about output scope 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?

Two concise sentences. The first states the core purpose and content, the second clarifies it is a single summary without detail lists. Front-loaded and free of redundancy, 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the summary contains (sales, purchases, returns with quantities and values) and what it omits (invoice listing). Parameter specifics are only partially addressed, but the 'period' reference covers the date range. Overall, it provides sufficient context for a read-only overview 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 mentions 'período' which implies data_inicial/data_final, and 'loja' is obvious, but it does not explain the 'account' parameter or provide explicit parameter-level guidance. It adds partial semantic context but leaves some parameters undocumented.

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 provides a summary (Panorama/Resumo) of sales, purchases, and returns with quantities and values for a given period in a store. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cigam_vendas (likely listing sales) by explicitly stating it is a single summary without listing invoices. The verb 'Panorama' and resource 'loja' are specific.

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 gives clear context: use this for a period summary in a store, not for detailed listings ('sem listar as notas'). It implies when to use it over more granular siblings, but does not explicitly name alternatives. Given the sibling names, the intent is clear enough to guide selection.

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 this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that by specifying the two main response states: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This helps an agent predict what to expect.

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, front-loads the core purpose, and then adds only the essential conditional details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and there is no waste.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what information will be returned, what the success condition looks like, and what happens when credentials are missing. The low complexity means no additional guidance is required.

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 description does not need to explain any input semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter burden at all.

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: returning connection status and URLs. It distinguishes connect from its sibling authenticate by framing it as a status/read operation rather than an action, and the conditional output descriptions reinforce this.

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 makes clear that this is the tool to call when checking connection state or getting URLs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like authenticate, but the context strongly implies connect is for status checking rather than initiating authentication, so usage is clear without being fully 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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: invoke runs an MCP even when it is not installed, does a one-off run without adding the MCP to the toolkit, returns a connect link when credentials are needed, returns a checkout/top-up link when payment is needed, and requires workspace owner/admin for write operations. The description enriches the annotations and 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 front-loaded with identity and the core flow, and nearly every sentence carries useful guidance. However, it is one dense, wall-of-text paragraph with mixed language ("pontualmente") and heavy inline emphasis, which makes the many action alternatives hard to scan and parse.

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 23-parameter, 14-action facade with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the core flow, one-off invoke semantics, auth/credential/payment behavior, permission requirements, installed flags, the prompt library, and most action outcomes. The main gaps are the resume action and return-shape details for a few actions, but the overall guidance is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 does a lot of compensating work: it maps action values such as search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, publish_prompt, and explains tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related intent. However, several parameters and enum actions remain unexplained, including resume, limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, report_context, conversation, request_name, and request_details, leaving agents under-specified for those paths.

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 in-platform catalog of MCPs/tools and the way to run them. It states the core discovery→describe→invoke flow, distinguishes the prompt-library subdomain from the MCP flow, and makes it clear this is a marketplace orchestrator rather than one of the sibling calculator/authenticate 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use install only to make an MCP permanent, prefer invoke for one-off use, use list_tools to see what is callable now, use subscribe/cancel for billing, and use request_mcp when nothing fits. It also explains what to do when invoke returns a connect link or checkout link, including retry behavior.

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 carry the safety profile with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that conversation data is needed for reproduction, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose what happens after submission, such as whether a ticket is created or whether the report is asynchronous, though the annotations lower the burden.

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 tight sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives the key usage instruction. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant 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 simple three-parameter reporting tool with annotations already covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gaps are the unexplained `context` parameter and the absence of any indication of what the response or outcome will be, though no output schema is expected.

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 for undocumented parameters. It only clarifies the `conversation` parameter via 'conversation array with recent messages,' leaving the required `message` and optional `context` undefined. The agent must guess at their intended content.

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 verb 'Report' and explicitly enumerates three targets: 'bug, missing feature, or send feedback'. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and easily distinguishable from the sibling calculo_* and authentication tools, which serve entirely different functions.

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 establishes a clear context: use when a user reports a problem or wants to provide feedback. It also adds practical guidance to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' It does not name alternatives, but none of the sibling tools overlap with bug reporting, so exclusions are unnecessary.

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 agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating call. The description adds little beyond that—it names the output as versions but doesn't specify the format (e.g., semver strings, JSON object) or whether the output is human-readable. Since the annotations carry the 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 a single sentence of 9 words, front-loading the action ('Show') and the object ('version'). There is zero waste, and it fully conveys the tool's purpose within its scope. This is a model of conciseness.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. An agent can confidently invoke it without additional context. The only minor gap is that the return format is unspecified, but since there is no output schema, a brief note on the output structure (e.g., 'returns a plain-text summary') would elevate completeness. Still, the description is sufficient 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (no properties). The description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description is consistent with that—it correctly implies that no input is required.

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: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all calculation or authentication tools. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'show' returns (e.g., a text summary vs. structured data), but the resource 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 that this tool is for checking version information, which makes sense in contexts where an agent needs to confirm platform/adapter versions before proceeding. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention whether version information is needed for authentication or compatibility checks. Given the sibling tools are all calculations, the usage context is reasonably clear, but not explicitly delineated.

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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by detailing what kind of state is returned, including connection status and account bindings, which helps the agent understand the tool's informational scope.

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 tightly packed sentence with the main action front-loaded, followed by a colon-delimited list of return contents. Every phrase earns its place 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know before calling: what information it will receive. No output schema exists, but the description essentially provides a light output contract by enumerating the returned components.

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 is empty with zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter burden. Per calibration, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4; the description's output-focused content is more than sufficient.

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 verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is specific enough to distinguish it from computational siblings like calculo_* and action tools like authenticate or 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 clearly conveys that this is the tool to call when an agent needs an overview or snapshot of the toolkit's current state. It does not explicitly list exclusion criteria or name alternatives such as show_version, but the context is clear enough for routine selection.

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