Conselho Regional de Odontologia ES: Cadastro

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnly=false, destructive=false. The description adds useful context about permanent vs. session-based authentication and the two invocation modes (with/without token). It does not contradict any annotation, and the added context about auth flow goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the core action (log in, copy token). It efficiently covers both invocation modes and the recommended permanent approach. Minor verbosity exists (e.g., 'MCP.AI for IDE agents'), but each 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the authentication flow, two methods (session and permanent), and mentions the config header. It lacks explicit mention of what a successful authentication returns (e.g., a confirmation message), but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 zero schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining that the 'token' parameter is a JWT string, is optional, and specifying how it's used (session login). It also clarifies that omitting it retrieves a login link. This adds rich meaning beyond the bare 'type: string' in the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: authenticating an IDE agent via browser login or token. It uses the specific verb 'authenticate' and identifies the resource (MCP.AI for IDE agents). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'connect', the purpose is unambiguous.

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

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

The description provides clear instructions on how to use the tool: either by pasting a JWT token for a session, or calling with no arguments to get a login link. It also suggests a preferred permanent method (config header). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives 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=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds context about response behavior (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs) beyond the annotations, which is valuable.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by conditional details. Every word earns its place, 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully covers return values and behavior for both connection states. Given the tool's simplicity, it is complete and leaves no major 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?

Tool has 0 parameters, and schema_description_coverage is 100% (vacuously). Baseline for 0 params is 4; description doesn't need to explain parameters and doesn't add unnecessary info.

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 specific conditional behavior for connected vs. missing credentials. This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate and marketplace.

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

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

Provides clear context (when connected vs. credentials missing) but does not explicitly say when to use versus alternatives like authenticate. The conditional scenarios imply usage, but no explicit exclusions are present.

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 behavioral details beyond annotations, such as the cost per query and that the data is not confidential. It aligns with the readOnly and idempotent hints, and no contradictions are present.

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 sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes relevant legal and usage details without being overly 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 covers the purpose, cost, data source, and sensitivity. It does not explain the output format, but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of a query tool, this is acceptable.

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 a single parameter 'inscricao' with no description. The tool description implies it is the registration number to query, but this is not explicitly stated, so the compensation is only partial.

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 that the tool queries registration information from the Regional Council of Dentistry ES via an official source. It is distinct from the sibling tools, which focus on authentication, connection, marketplace, etc.

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

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

The description notes that queries are paid via prepaid credits and require no platform credentials, offering some usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or say when not to use it, leaving the guidance partly 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description reveals critical behaviors: invoke works without installation, writes require owner/admin, and missing credentials/wallet produce connect/checkout links. It also notes installed_in_toolkit vs workspace flags, adding depth that annotations alone would not convey.

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 lengthy but densely informative, with a clear flow from discovery to invocation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and flow, and every sentence adds value. It lacks bullet points or section breaks, making it a wall of text, but the structure is logical and efficient given the tool's complexity.

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 having 23 parameters and 14 actions, the description covers every action, the main workflow, edge cases (credential/wallet), permission requirements, and the prompt library. It is remarkably complete for such a complex tool, leaving little to the imagination about how to operate it.

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 coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden of parameter explanation. It explains core parameters like action (with enum values), mcp_id, tool_id, and arguments, plus prompt-related fields (prompt_title, prompt_body, etc.) implicitly through actions. However, some parameters like limit, query, immediate, and cancel_reason are not explicitly 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?

The description clearly defines the tool as the marketplace for MCPs and tools, detailing its role as both catalog and execution layer. It explicitly enumerates actions (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tools and report_bug, making its purpose 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 provides explicit decision guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', names alternatives like list_tools, and explains credential and wallet handling for invoke. It also clarifies when to use subscribe/cancel and request_mcp, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool over others.

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 readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=truepiù. The description adds that the conversation array is included for reproduction, implying it sends data. But it does not disclose side effects like whether a ticket is created or if data is stored. With annotations covering safety, it's 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose Attorney, no wasted words. Efficiently combines purpose and guidance.

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 minimal: it explains the purpose and hints at conversation usage but omits parameter semantics for message/context steal and does not describe expected outcomes or error conditions. No output schema exists, so the description should cover more.

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 3 params with 0% coverage and no descriptions. The description only explains 'conversation' (says it should contain recent messages) but does not explain 'message' or 'context'. It fails to compensate for the schema 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 reports bugs, missing features, or feedback. It identifies the specific actions and targets, and distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate or show_version.

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 says to include the conversation array for reproduction, implying when to use it (when reporting an issue with context). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though none are obvious.

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 does not need to repeat safety. The description adds the specific behavior of showing both platform and adapter versions, which is context beyond the annotations.

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

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

The description is a single sentence of five words, front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise and efficient with zero 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 simple read-only version tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what it will retrieve, and no additional conflict or complexity 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (the schema is empty). The description provides no parameter details because none exist; this is complete. Baseline 4 for 0 parameters is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It uses a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('versions'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace'.

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

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

The description implies usage (when you need to check versions), but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of sibling overlap, this is acceptable but not 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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds value by outlining what the state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools), which is richer than just 'toolkit info'. It doesn't mention output format, but with no output schema and a simple informational purpose, this is acceptable.

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, concise and information-dense. It lists the key content areas without redundancy. 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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), but the description enumerates the information categories (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog count). This is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect, though it doesn't describe the exact structure of the output (e.g., JSON format), but that's not required given the simplicity.

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 there is nothing to explain. The description covers the fully parameterless tool, making schema coverage 100% irrelevant. The baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools, and description adds no extra parameter info because none exist. It still clearly explains what the tool returns.

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 what the tool does: returns the current toolkit state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools). It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and describes the resource (toolkit state) with detail. It distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate', 'connect', etc., which are action-oriented, while this is purely informational.

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: when you need an overview of the toolkit status, installed MCPs, connections, and catalog tools. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, but siblings are action-oriented (authenticate, connect, report_bug), making the purpose distinct. No exclusion is provided, but context is clear enough for an agent.

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