Conta Simples

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

Annotations indicate idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds workflows for token vs no-args, explaining behavior beyond annotations. Consistent 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?

Two sentences, efficient, front-loaded with target audience. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers main use cases well. No output schema; return value for success not detailed, but sufficient for an auth tool. Complete given 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 has 0% coverage; description compensates by explaining the 'token' parameter is a JWT for session login, and how to obtain it. Adds significant meaning.

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 handles authentication, providing a browser login link or accepting a token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' by being specifically for authentication.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly describes two usage modes: session-only token paste or permanent config-based login, advising best practice. No negatives but clear context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating safe repeated calls. The description adds useful behavioral details about response content under two conditions, which is consistent 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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, 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?

Given no parameters and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently summarizes the tool's behavior for typical use. Could mention error states but not required for a simple status tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, and baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with explicit scenarios for when all providers are connected vs. credentials missing. This action is distinct from siblings like 'authenticate' which handles authentication, not status.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'authenticate'. It describes what the tool does but not in what context the agent should invoke 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?

Discloses return format (content_base64, content_type, size_bytes) and bulk execution behavior. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description adds useful context about what is returned and batch capability.

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 sentences pack significant information, but the first sentence is in Portuguese which may cause slight confusion. Overall efficient with no fluff.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers input parameters, return fields, and bulk support, making it self-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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the meaning of each parameter: accounts (single entry or omit), attachment_id (single download), attachment_ids (bulk). This adds essential meaning beyond the raw 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 downloads attachments by ID, specifying supported formats (PNG/JPEG/PDF) and return fields. It differentiates from sibling tools which handle other entities like balance, bill, card, etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides guidance on when to use the accounts parameter (single entry or omit for single-account installs) and describes bulk support via attachment_ids. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds that the value is instant, no cache, and returns {amount} per account. It also explains optional aggregation behavior, enhancing transparency.

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 concise with three short sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, usage, and optional parameter behavior. No fluff.

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

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

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers all needed context: real-time balance, per-account return, and optional aggregation. No missing details.

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 one optional parameter (accounts) with no description. The description explains it aggregates multiple companies in parallel and returns accounts[] and errors[], adding critical 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 it returns the available balance in real-time, specifying it's 'direto da API, sem cache nem último-valor'. It explicitly says 'Use para relatórios de saldo em tempo real', distinguishing it from sibling tools like statements or summaries.

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 says to use for real-time balance reports, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but its focus on balance makes it distinct from 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 readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, which the description aligns with. Additionally, it discloses the aggregation behavior (accounts[] + errors[]) and the limitation about available limit, adding 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 well-structured with line breaks and front-loads purpose. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be more concise by omitting explanatory notes about Conta Simples API limitations, but those add useful context.

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 covers both modes and explains return fields (total, amountToPay, dates, paymentStatus, items). It also addresses the missing limit field explicitly. Without output schema, it gives enough information to understand the tool's output. Slightly incomplete regarding pagination or error handling.

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 fully explains parameters: due_date changes mode, status is optional filter, accounts enables parallel aggregation. Though status enum values are not listed, the description provides sufficient context for usage.

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's about credit card invoices (faturas do cartão de crédito) and distinguishes two modes: listing invoices and retrieving details with due_date. It differentiates from sibling tools like contasimples_balance and contasimples_card.

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 explains when to use each mode (without due_date for listing, with due_date for details) and mentions that it doesn't expose available limit, implying not to use for limits. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to other tools or provide exclusionary guidance.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses that the tool supports optional filtering and a multi-account parallel mode with specific pagination constraints. This adds behavioral detail about how accounts and pagination interact, which annotations do not cover.

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, with two sentences covering purpose and key usage details. It front-loads the main function and adds special behavior in the second sentence. Could be improved by structuring the filter list for readability.

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?

Missing return value description, pagination details (beyond the restriction), and output format. With no output schema, the agent needs to know the shape of results, which is absent. Parameter semantics are also incomplete, making the tool harder to use accurately.

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 only enumerates parameter names (status, type, email, etc.) without explaining their meaning or expected format. For example, 'last4' and 'limit' are not defined, leaving ambiguity about their purpose and usage.

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

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

Description clearly states it lists corporate cards (credit) with optional filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like contasimples_card_write_block which are write operations. It specifies the resource (corporate cards) and action (list), with a comprehensive list of filters.

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 context on when to use the accounts parameter for parallel queries across companies, and a critical restriction that next_page_start_key cannot be used when accounts > 1, requiring per-account pagination. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, the read-only intent and sibling naming make it clear.

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 provide no safety hints beyond non-read-only. Description adds that it supports bulk execution via card_ids and that card_id exists in only one company. However, it does not disclose what blocking actually does (e.g., prevents transactions, duration) or if it's reversible.

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 short but disorganized; it mixes block/unblock, a flattened action note, and bulk support without clear separation. Could be more concise and 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?

As a mutation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain behavior, return values, and comparison to siblings. It partially covers bulk support and accounts limitation but lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or when to use block vs unblock.

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, description partially compensates by explaining 'reason' is optional for blocking, 'accounts' accepts one entry or omitted, and 'card_ids' enables bulk. But it leaves 'accounts' purpose unclear and doesn't describe 'card_id' beyond being 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 states it performs block mutations on cards with optional reason, but it also mentions 'unblock' which is confusing given a separate sibling tool for unblock. The purpose is mostly clear but ambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It mentions parameter restrictions (accounts limited to one entry), but does not differentiate from sibling contasimples_card_write_unblock or other tools.

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

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it is a mutation (unblock), supports bulk execution, and that card_id belongs to one company. It does not contradict annotations, but lacks details on side effects, error behavior, or whether the action is reversible. The added context is useful but not comprehensive.

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 relatively short but mixes languages (Portuguese and English) and includes tangential information about 'block'. It is not as streamlined as it could be, but it conveys essential points. A more structured, single-focus description would improve clarity.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and is a mutation, the description lacks completeness: it does not describe return values, error handling, authentication requirements, or the effect of the operation in detail. It covers basic parameter semantics and bulk support but misses important behavioral and post-condition information.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that reason is optional, card_id is required, accounts accepts at most one entry, and card_ids enables bulk. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not explain the exact format or constraints for each parameter, so it partially compensates.

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 'Mutações em cartão: unblock' and clarifies 'Flattened action: unblock', clearly indicating the tool unblocks a card. Although it also mentions 'block' in the same sentence, the intent is disambiguated by the tool name and the flattened action note. The purpose is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools by name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like the sibling 'contasimples_card_write_block'. The description does not specify prerequisites, recommended scenarios, or when not to use it. The mention of 'accounts' and 'card_ids' implies some context but lacks clear usage direction.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by explaining the grouping behavior of the accounts parameter.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus a parenthetical. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the main action.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose and parameter meaning. Annotations cover safety. Could mention return format but not necessary.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains that accounts groups by account, adding meaning beyond the schema's type definition.

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 verb (Lista) and resource (categorias financeiras), distinguishing it from sibling tools like contasimples_balance or contasimples_bill.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the description only mentions a parameter, not usage 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, non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing bulk execution and grouping behaviors, which are 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 very concise: three sentences with clear structure. Front-loaded with main purpose, then details. 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?

Given no output schema and three parameters with zero coverage, the description provides sufficient context for usage. However, it could mention response format or pagination, but it's not critical.

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 cost_center_id, accounts, and cost_center_ids but lacks type details or constraints. Barely adequate.

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 cost centers (id, name) and can return a single one with cost_center_id. It also explains its use for classifying expenses, distinguishing it from siblings like contasimples_category.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains when to use (classify expenses) and mentions optional grouping (accounts) and bulk support (cost_center_ids). Though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the context is clear.

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 minimal behavioral context beyond mentioning bulk support. The description aligns with annotations and does not contradict them, but it doesn't disclose additional traits like auth requirements or rate limits.

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, using only two sentences to convey purpose, key parameters, and special features like grouping and bulk support. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary 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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description should indicate what is returned (e.g., list of invites, pagination details). It mentions next_page_start_key but doesn't explain it as a pagination token or that it appears in the response. The description covers parameters but omits response structure, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists all parameters (status, role_id, limit, next_page_start_key, accounts, role_ids) and implies their roles (e.g., filtering, pagination, grouping), but lacks specifics such as allowed values for status or format requirements. This is insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 pending invites or history, with filtering by status, role_id, limit, and next_page_start_key. It also mentions grouping by account and bulk support, making the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like contasimples_invite_write_create.

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 usage hints such as accepting accounts for grouping and role_ids for bulk execution. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, the sibling names make the read vs write distinction clear. More explicit exclusion criteria would improve this 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 indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Bulk support' behavior but does not disclose side effects (e.g., duplicate handling) or required permissions. It is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise (three sentences), front-loaded with the core action, and includes a parenthetical note and bulk clarification without 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?

The description covers main parameters and bulk support, but lacks any mention of return values (no output schema) or error conditions. For a 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, it is moderately complete but has gaps.

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 that role_id and email are primary, accounts holds a single entry, and role_ids supports batching. However, it does not detail formats, constraints, or valid values, leaving ambiguity.

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 creates an invite ('Cria convite') with specific action 'create', using role_id and email. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'contasimples_invite' (which likely lists invites) by indicating this is the write variant.

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 usage context: it accepts a single account entry and supports bulk creation via role_ids. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use, though the name and purpose imply differentiation.

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, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds value by specifying the output fields (id, label, display nickname) and scoping to 'this install', which aids in understanding the response.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could benefit from structured formatting (e.g., bullet points for outputs).

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must compensate by detailing return values and edge cases. While it lists some output fields, it fails to explain the 'accounts' parameter, pagination, or limits, leaving gaps for a complete 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 has a single optional array parameter 'accounts' with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain its purpose or behavior, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use it effectively.

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 Conta Simples connections (companies) linked to the install, specifying the returned fields (id, label, display nickname). The verb 'lista' and resource 'conexões' are specific, and no sibling tool directly competes.

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 alternatives like contasimples_balance or contasimples_bill. The description lacks explicit context or exclusion criteria, forcing the agent to infer usage.

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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds one behavioral nuance (grouping by account) but does not disclose other traits like rate limits or data volume. With annotations covering the base safety profile, this is adequate 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. 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 simple tool (one optional parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description provides enough context: it lists roles and explains the account grouping. It is complete without being verbose.

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 sole parameter 'accounts' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining it allows grouping by account, adding meaning beyond the raw schema definition.

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

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

Description clearly states it lists roles for user invites, with an optional accounts parameter to group by account. This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like contasimples_invite or contasimples_invite_write_create.

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 context (listing roles, optionally grouped by account) but does not provide explicit when/when-not or alternatives. It is adequate for a straightforward listing tool but lacks guidance on when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) align with the description. The description adds behavioral context: client-side filtering, parallel aggregation, and pagination constraints, which are not covered by 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 concise and front-loaded with key information. However, it mixes Portuguese and English and lacks clear separation between parameter rules, which slightly hampers readability.

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 18 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential operational constraints but does not explain the return format or all parameter semantics, leaving gaps for a complex tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains constraints for some parameters (date range, amount filters, limit, keywords, accounts, next_page_start_key) but leaves many parameters (e.g., status, sorting, account_id, category_ids) unexplained, only partially compensating.

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 is a bank statement (transações) tool for retrieving transactions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like contasimples_statement_card and contasimples_balance by specifying the resource and scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidelines: start_date and end_date must be together or omitted, at most one amount filter, limit 1–50, optional keywords as client-side filter, and accounts parallel aggregation with pagination restrictions.

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?

Adds significant behavioral details beyond annotations: date pairing, window constraint, client-side keyword filtering, multi-account parallel aggregation with errors array, and pagination prohibition. These are not captured by readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint.

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 for the amount of information conveyed, but a bulleted or structured format could improve readability. No unnecessary sentences.

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?

Covers all 7 parameters with usage rules, aggregation constraints, and filtering details. No output schema exists, but the description does not need to explain return values as per rules. Complete for accurate tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's role, constraints (e.g., start_date/end_date paired, limit range 5-100, next_page_start_key prohibited when accounts>1), and optionality.

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 credit card statements ('Extrato de cartão de crédito'), with a specific verb (extrato) and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'contasimples_statement_banking' which handles banking statements.

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 usage context: date pairing, window limit, optional types, limit range, and aggregation behavior. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the constraints guide correct usage.

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?

Description provides extensive behavioral context beyond annotations, including return structure (totals, top categories, cash flow, meta flags), truncation handling, period limit, include_canceled behavior, parallel aggregation for multiple accounts, and keyword filtering. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, so 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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded. It begins with the main purpose, lists return values, then constraints and optional parameters. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The description is largely complete given the schema's lack of descriptions and no output schema. It explains return structure, constraints, and optional parameters. Minor gaps: movement_type and top_n are not mentioned, and error handling beyond accounts could be elaborated.

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 by explaining the roles of start_date, end_date, include_canceled, accounts, and keywords. However, movement_type and top_n are not described, leaving minor 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?

Description clearly states the tool returns an aggregated summary of banking and card transactions for a period, distinguishing it from paginating through detailed transactions. It specifies what it returns: totals, top categories, top establishments, cash flow, and meta flags.

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 explains that the tool is a one-call alternative to paginating hundreds of transactions, implying usage for aggregate queries. It also notes the maximum period of 62 days and explains the include_canceled behavior. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or name specific sibling 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: no pagination, single vs bulk retrieval, and optional accounts grouping. This fully informs the agent about the tool's safety and behavior 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 concise at 4 sentences, each adding unique value. It front-loads the core action and then provides options and use case. 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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions returned fields (id, name, type) but could elaborate on the structure of accounts[], though the complexity is low (3 params). It is mostly complete for its purpose.

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?

Input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining each parameter's effect: supplier_id returns one supplier, supplier_ids enables bulk, and accounts groups results. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 lists suppliers with specific fields (id, name, type), supports single retrieval by supplier_id and bulk via supplier_ids, and mentions grouping by accounts. It distinguishes from sibling tools like contasimples_bill or contasimples_category by focusing on suppliers and expense classification.

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 says 'Use para classificar despesas em relatórios' (use to classify expenses in reports), giving a clear usage context. It also mentions bulk support. However, it does not specify when not to use it or provide alternative tools, leaving some room for improvement.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that pagination parameters are optional and the accounts parameter groups results, but does not explain behavior with no parameters or clarify rate limits. It adds modest 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 concise sentences: the first states the core action with parameters, the second explains the accounts parameter. No filler; key information 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?

Given no output schema and 4 parameters with no individual descriptions, the description provides the basic purpose and parameter roles. However, it lacks details on pagination mechanics, email usage, and output format, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand usage.

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 names optional parameters and explains the accounts grouping. However, it does not describe the email parameter (filter or field?), limit defaults, or next_page_start_key as a pagination token. Some meaning is added but not comprehensive.

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 users of the company and mentions optional filtering/pagination parameters. It effectively distinguishes from write tools like contasimples_user_write_delete, but does not specify the exact scope or what fields are listed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., contasimples_role, contasimples_invite). The context of shared tool names implies it is for listing users, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice 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?

Annotations show destructiveHint=false, but description describes a DELETE operation ('Remove usuário' and 'DELETE na API'), which is inherently destructive. This is a clear contradiction. Description does not add behavioral context beyond indicating deletion.

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?

Description is brief and to the point, covering action, accounts constraint, and bulk support. Could be more structured (e.g., separate lines for params) but no fluff.

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?

No output schema provided, and description omits return value, prerequisites, or post-condition details. For a destructive tool, more context (e.g., is user permanently removed? any cascade effects?) would improve completeness.

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, description adds value by explaining the 'accounts' parameter accepts only 1 entry and 'user_ids' supports batch execution. This clarifies usage beyond the schema's bare property definitions.

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

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

Description clearly specifies the action ('Remove usuário da empresa' and 'DELETE na API') and resource ('user'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'contasimples_user' (likely read-only) and 'contasimples_invite_write_create' (invite creation). The verb 'remove' and scope 'from company' are explicit.

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?

Description mentions bulk support via 'user_ids' and accounts constraint ('Aceita `accounts` com 1 entrada'), but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. No direct comparison to sibling tools.

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

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

The description richly discloses behaviors beyond annotations: invoke runs one-off without installing the MCP, returns connect links for credentials and checkout links for paid tools with empty wallets, and that search/describe flag installed states. It also explains the distinction between one-off invoke and permanent install, and covers auth requirements for writes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but information-dense, with each sentence adding a distinct behavioral or usage detail. It is front-loaded with a high-level purpose, then flows through the search-describe-invoke workflow, and covers the prompt library. While concise for the tool's complexity, it could be slightly more structured with separation between the MCP flow, billing, and prompt library sections.

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 complexity (23 parameters, 14 actions) and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflows, auth, and billing semantics, the prompt library, and key constraints like invoke's one-off behavior. Minor gaps include the 'resume' action, the 'immediate' parameter, and precise handling of request_mcp details, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly for most use 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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description is the primary source for parameter meaning. It explains the action parameter's enum values through the core workflow (search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, cancel, list_tools, report_bug, request_mcp, search_prompts, get_prompt, publish_prompt), and implicitly references mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, prompt fields, and tier_slug. However, it does not dissolve every parameter (e.g., 'immediate', 'conversation') or specify the JSON format for arguments or prompt_vars, leaving some guidance 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 identifies the tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace and execution gateway, with a specific core flow (search → describe → invoke). It explicitly lists the categories of capability requests it covers ('find an MCP that does X', 'consulta um CPF', 'is there a tool for Y'), distinguishing it from the sibling contasimples_* tools and other utility 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use vs alternatives: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and notes 'list_tools lists what is callable right now' and 'request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits.' Also states that writes require workspace owner/admin, guiding the agent on permission prerequisites.

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 minimal behavioral context beyond 'report' which implies submission. Annotations give idempotentHint true, but reporting is typically non-idempotent; the description does not clarify this discrepancy or disclose 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 very concise (one sentence), but at the cost of omitting essential parameter details; it is succinct but incomplete.

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

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

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema; the description fails to fully document all parameters or specify outcomes, making it inadequate for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions the conversation array, leaving 'message' (required) and 'context' unexplained.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool reports bugs, missing features, or feedback. It is distinct from sibling tools that focus on contasimples operations or general utilities.

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 some usage guidance by requesting the conversation array for reproduction, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool compared to siblings.

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

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

The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) and adds the context of returning 'current' versions. No contradictions.

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 that is front-loaded and contains all necessary information with 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 version information tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what it returns. No additional details are needed.

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 schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter information; baseline score 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 'show' and identifies the resource clearly as 'MCP platform and adapter versions'. It is unique among sibling tools, which focus on accounts, authentication, 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 implies when to use (to check current versions) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, for a simple informational tool, this is sufficient.

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 description doesn't need to state safety. The description adds value by specifying what state is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that begins with the action ('Returns') and clearly lists the output contents. Every word contributes to understanding, with none wasted on fluff.

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 value by enumerating the four categories of state information. This is complete for a simple, parameterless informational tool and requires no further clarification.

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 score is 4. The empty schema and description both correctly omit parameter details, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any undocumented 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 explicitly states 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version (likely version info) and authenticate/connect (actions).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to inspect toolkit state. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident given the read-only nature and sibling tools. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' rubric.

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