Conselho Regional de Farmácia GO: Cadastro

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

Annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds useful behavioral context: browser-based login, token handling, permanent vs. session-only connections, and the option to call with no arguments to receive the link. It 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 moderately compact and front-loaded, with three sentences each contributing useful information. The config-header recommendation adds slightly beyond the immediate tool invocation but is relevant to the authentication workflow.

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

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

For a single-optional-parameter authentication tool with no output schema, the description explains the main workflows and outcomes well. It could mention return values or error behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining the optional 'token' parameter. It does so explicitly: a JWT string pasted by the user for session-only login, or omitted to receive the browser link. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 for IDE agents, involving browser login, token acquisition, and establishing a session. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'connect' tool, but the purpose is nonetheless specific and not tautological.

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: use with no args to get a login link, or pass a pasted token for session-only auth. It also recommends the preferred permanent config-header approach, though it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like 'connect'.

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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing return conditions (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url when credentials missing), which helps the agent anticipate responses beyond what annotations 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. Conditional outcomes are clearly separated 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?

For a zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description covers the two main states and lists key return fields. It could elaborate on what pending[] contains when non-empty, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description focuses on output behavior instead, which is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states it 'Returns connection status and URLs,' with specific outcomes for connected vs missing credentials. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace' by focusing on status inspection rather than action.

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 use for checking connection status, but does not explicitly say when to use this over 'authenticate' or mention alternative tools. It provides context on expected output but lacks direct when-to-use/when-not-to-use 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 annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation incurs a cost ('pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago'), requires no platform credentials ('sem credenciais da plataforma'), and accesses non-confidential official data ('a mesma disponível ao cidadão, não é dado sigiloso'). It also mentions LGPD responsibilities, which is an important legal/behavioral note. This meaningfully supplements 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 concise, with the core purpose in the first sentence and operational/legal details following. It avoids fluff and stays within 3-4 sentences, although the legal phrasing feels slightly tacked-on. The front-loading of purpose is good, and nothing is redundant, though clearer formatting could improve scannability.

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

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

For a simple read-only query tool with three optional parameters, the description covers the high-level purpose, cost, authentication, and legal context. However, it omits critical details like what happens when no parameters are provided, how parameters combine, and the exact structure of a valid query. Since there is no output schema, the description should have addressed these gaps to be considered complete.

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

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

The description provides no information about the parameters (nome, tipo, inscricao). With 0% schema description coverage and no mention of these fields in the description, the agent receives zero guidance on how to populate them or their expected formats. The description's generic reference to 'consulta' does not compensate, leaving parameter semantics entirely 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?

The description 'Conselho Regional de Farmácia GO: Cadastro, consulta em fonte oficial' clearly conveys a query/lookup operation for registration data from the CRF-GO official source. It uses a specific resource (CRF-GO) and implies a read/query verb ('consulta'), which distinguishes it from the unrelated generic sibling tools. However, the phrasing is slightly fragmented and could be more explicit with a defined verb like 'search' or 'list.'

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions operational details like 'sem credenciais da plataforma' (no platform credentials) and 'pague por consulta' (pay per query), but these are not framed as usage conditions or exclusion criteria. The phrase 'não é dado sigiloso' (not confidential data) weakly implies it is for non-sensitive data, but there is no clear 'use when...' or 'do not use when...' 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?

Adds meaningful context beyond annotations: write actions (install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel, plus the hidden one-off install behind invoke) require workspace owner/admin; invoke runs tools even when not installed without bloating the tool list; search/describe flag installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. This complements the openWorldHint=true annotation well. Minor gap: doesn't state what happens on failures or rate limits, and the destructiveHint=false claim is left unexamined despite the cancel/uninstall actions.

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 unbroken wall of text with no paragraph breaks, bullet points, or headings. For a tool with 14 distinct actions and two functional areas, this dense format is very hard to parse. It does front-load the core flow early, but the tail (prompt library) is crammed in with no structure. The length is partly justified by complexity, but the lack of ANY structure makes it significantly less usable.

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 23 parameters, zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no required params, the description is incomplete. It covers the conceptual flow and auth/wallet behavior well, but fails to document the valid param combinations per action, the format of key inputs (arguments as JSON, conversation as JSON array), and the semantics of several params (immediate, tier_slug, request_name). An agent would struggle to correctly construct calls for actions like publish_prompt or subscribe because parameter expectations aren't specified. The prompt-library feature is tacked on without adequate detail.

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%—none of the 23 parameters have schema descriptions. The description carries the full burden but only partially compensates: it explains the action enum conceptually and mentions mcp_id/tool_id implicitly via the flow, but leaves many parameters unexplained (conversation, immediate, tier_slug, request_name, prompt_tool, cancel_reason, report_context, etc.). The 'arguments' parameter's JSON-string format is never stated, and the prompt-library params (prompt_body, prompt_slug, prompt_vars, prompt_targets) are only vaguely referenced. A structured per-action parameter mapping would be needed to reach adequacy.

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 this is the mcp.ai marketplace catalog for MCPs/tools, covering discovery ('find an MCP that does X'), profiling, and execution. The purpose is identifiable but diffuse—it bundles two distinct concerns (MCP marketplace + prompt library) into one tool, and the mention of 'consulta um CPF' is oddly specific. It does distinguish itself from siblings like authenticate/connect by being the catalog/execution layer.

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?

Excellent guidance: explicitly contrasts invoke (one-off, works without install) vs install (permanent), explains when to prefer each ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use'), documents the search→describe→invoke core flow, states when to use request_mcp ('asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits'), and handles edge cases (connect link for credentials, checkout link for empty wallet, then retry). This is the strongest dimension.

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=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it reports a bug, implying a side effect (sending data) but doesn't detail outcomes or rate limits. Given annotations exist, the description provides moderate additional 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and including a key instruction. No redundant words or 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?

The description covers the main purpose and one parameter usage but omits details about the other parameters, potential error conditions, or expected outcomes. While not required due to lack of output schema, it is not fully complete for an agent to use without assumptions.

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 three parameters (context, message, conversation) with low coverage. The description only references 'conversation array', leaving message and context undefined. Since schema coverage is below 50%, the description fails to compensate by explaining the most important required parameter (message).

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback, and it includes an instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction. This is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from unrelated 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 gives a practical usage guideline ('Include the conversation array with recent messages') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent would infer it's for reporting issues.

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 well established. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond restating the action (showing versions). It doesn't mention any side effects, prerequisites, or data returned, but given the annotations cover the critical aspects, a score of 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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's function. It front-loads the key information and contains no 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 simple, parameterless read-only tool, the description is adequate. Annotations confirm safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). No output schema is present, but the tool's behavior is clear and no additional context seems 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?

The tool has zero parametersageina and schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter meaning since there are none.

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 'Shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions' with a specific verb (show) and resource (versions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' by focusing specifically on version information, making its purpose 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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' that might also display system information. Given the simplicity, some guidance could be provided but is not essential.

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 well covered. The description adds meaningful context about what exact state is returned, which is valuable beyond the annotations. It does not mention possible latencies or auth requirements, but for a read-only state tool this is a minor gap.

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 primary purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then enumerates the returned components compactly. 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, informational tool, the description is complete: it clearly states the output categories and leaves no ambiguity about what the agent will learn by invoking it. No output schema exists, but the description covers the expected return content sufficiently.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description fully explains what the no-argument call returns, making parameter semantics a non-issue.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly defines the resource as 'current toolkit state,' with concrete detail on what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like show_version or authenticate.

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

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

The description implies the tool is for inspecting toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear and self-contained, so no misleading guidance exists, but explicit exclusions or alternative references are absent.

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