DER PR: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by explaining that calling with no args returns a login link and that passing a token establishes a session, while adding to config creates a non-expiring header. This discloses side effects (permanent changes to config) and the non-mutating nature of the session-only option. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral detail, though it omits error-handling edge cases (e.g., invalid token).

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 somewhat verbose, including a directive for IDE agents and two alternatives, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence adds value. It could be tightened (e.g., removing the parenthetical about Cursor), but it remains well-structured and scannable.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers both invocation styles, the expected return (a link), and the permanent vs session distinction. It fully explains the behavior within the context of the annotations, making it complete 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?

The schema has one optional string parameter 'token' with no description. The description compensates fully by explaining its purpose: when the user pastes a JWT, the tool should be called with { token: '<jwt>' }, and when not provided, it returns a login link. This adds meaningful semantics 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's purpose: to authenticate an IDE agent by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It explains the two modes (permanent config vs session-only) and the flow, which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: it instructs when to call with no args to get a link, when to pass a token after user pastes, and recommends adding the token to config for a permanent connection. It also differentiates between permanent and session-only setups, leaving no ambiguity about how to invoke the tool.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable detail about output shape: authenticated:true with empty pending[] in the connected state and connect_url/per-install URLs when credentials are missing. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful conditional behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs') followed by the two relevant output cases. Every sentence adds meaningful information.

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

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

With no output schema, the description covers the main return scenarios and clarifies pending[], authenticated, and connect_url behavior. It is slightly thin on the exact authenticated value and pending contents in the partially connected/missing-credentials case, but it is adequate for a zero-parameter 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics (100% coverage). Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 states it 'Returns connection status and URLs,' identifying a specific read/status resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling authenticate by focusing on status inspection rather than credential setup.

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 conditional scenarios ('when all providers are connected' vs 'when credentials are missing') imply a status-check use case, but the description never explicitly says when to use connect instead of authenticate or other siblings. There are no exclusion statements or named alternatives, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable non-schema information: the tool is hosted on the platform, requires prepaid credit per query, does not use platform credentials, queries official Brazilian sources, and includes LGPD data controller responsibilities. This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail edge-case behaviors like invalid input handling.

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 paragraph of about 250 characters, opening with the core purpose ('DER PR: Certidão Negativa de Débitos, consulta em fonte oficial') before adding payment and legal context. It is concise and front-loaded, though it packs several clauses together without structural pauses, making it slightly dense.

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 a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers key contextual aspects like pricing, data source, and privacy obligations. However, it omits any explanation of the parameters (how to provide cpf/cnpj) and the expected return format, leaving gaps that could confuse an agent. It is adequate but not fully complete for effortless use.

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 two string parameters (cpf and cnpj) with no descriptions and 0% schema coverage. The description does not mention these parameters at all, failing to explain that they are likely alternatives or what format is expected. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate but does not, leaving the agent without adequate parameter 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 explicitly states the tool performs a consultation of 'Certidão Negativa de Débitos' from DER PR, a specific official resource. The verb 'consulta' and the named certificate clearly distinguish it from the generic sibling tools (authenticate, marketplace, etc.).

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

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

The description provides context about the tool being a paid, hosted query without platform credentials, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or any exclusion conditions. The intended use is implied (when needing a negative debt certificate from DER PR), but no direct guidance or alternative comparison is given.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that invoke works without installation, that writes require owner/admin, and that paid/credentialed MCPs return links. This is specific, behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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

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

The description is dense but well-structured: it opens with the core purpose and flow, then contrasts invoke vs install, then enumerates the palette of actions. It is long due to the tool's complexity, but every sentence conveys useful information without fluff. A slight deduction because it could be broken into clearer bullets, but overall efficient.

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

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

Given the tool's breadth (14 actions, including prompt library), the description covers all major behaviors and flows, including auth/wallet edge cases. It does not describe return values for every action, but it implies what search/describe return and explicitly mentions link-based outputs for invoke. Lacking an output schema, it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly in most cases.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the critical `action` parameter and its flow, plus key parameters like `tool_id`, `arguments`, and `mcp_id`. However, many parameters (e.g., `limit`, `query`, `conversation`, `prompt_*`) are not individually explained; the description relies on inference from action contexts. It covers the main semantics but not all 23 params.

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, covering discovery, execution, installation, and prompt management. It explicitly states the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or connect by enumerating its many 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?

It gives direct, actionable guidelines: prefer invoke for one-off runs, use install for permanent inclusion, and explains when to use search vs describe. It even notes that invoke returns connect/checkout links and how to proceed with retries—clear when-to-use instruction.

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 the tool is non-destructive and idempotent. The description adds that the conversation should be included for reproduction, which gives useful context, but it does not disclose any response behavior or external side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

Two short, front-loaded sentences contain the purpose and the key usage hint without any filler or repetition.

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 feedback tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the conversation reproduction hint. However, the context parameter is unaddressed, and the conversation format mismatch leaves some gaps for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only explains the purpose of the conversation field. The 'context' parameter is unexplained, and the description calls conversation an 'array' while the schema types it as a string, creating potential 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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and clearly identifies the targets: a bug, missing feature, or feedback. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace.

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

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

The first sentence gives explicit use cases: report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well established. The description adds the specific content of what is shown ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations, so a baseline 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 directly states the tool's function. It is fully front-loaded with no filler words, earning every character. Perfectly appropriate for a simple tool.

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 extremely simple with no parameters, no output schema, and unambiguous purpose. The description fully covers what the tool does, and given the low complexity, no additional context is needed. The provided annotations further enrich the context, making this 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 tool has no parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description does not need to add parameter meanings. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description already communicates the tool's purpose without param details.

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: showing the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies the resource (versions). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'connect', which serve different purposes.

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

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

The tool is a simple informational read-only operation with no parameters, so complex usage guidance is unnecessary. The description implies it is used to retrieve version information, and there are no exclusions or alternatives to compare. The context is clear, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it, which is acceptable for such a trivial tool.

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. The description adds meaningful context about what state is surfaced (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, exposed tool counts), going beyond the bare 'read-only' label without contradicting 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 entire description is one focused sentence, front-loading the main verb and listing the returned items in a readable order. Every clause contributes useful information with no 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 tool has a minimal input surface (no parameters) and no output schema, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining expectations. It fully names the categories of data the call returns, making the tool self-sufficient for an agent.

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 parameters, the empty schema is fully sufficient (schema description coverage is trivially 100%). The description needs to explain no argument semantics; the baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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

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

The description starts with 'Returns the current toolkit state', a specific verb and resource, then enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts per MCP, catalog tool counts). This clearly differentiates from siblings like show_version (version only) 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 presents a clear use case: retrieving the overall health and connectivity of the toolkit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the informational contents are specific enough that an agent knows when to call it (e.g., to check MCP status/credentials).

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