DER SP: Pesquisa de Indicação do Condutor Infrator

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals persistence semantics: config header yields a permanent, non-expiring connection, while pasting provides session-only authentication. It also discloses that no-args invocation returns a login link. It does not mention whether an existing session is invalidated or how the token is stored, but the core behavioral aspects are covered without contradicting 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 compact and information-dense, covering the browser flow, config-based permanent auth, session-only token auth, and no-arg behavior in two sentences. It is slightly dense with nested instructions, but every clause contributes useful guidance and nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete workflow: browser login, token retrieval, config alternative, token-paste alternative, and no-args behavior. It does not explicitly describe the response format after authentication succeeds, but the auth flow is adequately specified 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 must carry the parameter meaning. It does so by explaining that the optional `token` parameter is a JWT to paste for session-only login, and that omitting it triggers a login-link response. This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as an authentication flow for MCP.AI in IDE agents, with specific verbs: 'log in in the browser', 'copy the access token', and 'call with { token: ... }' or 'with no args to get the link'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing entirely on auth session setup rather than general connectivity or marketplace 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 explicit usage alternatives: adding the token to server config for a permanent non-expiring connection versus pasting it for a session-only login. It also explains when to pass a token versus calling with no arguments. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement or comparison to sibling tools like connect, but 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral details about the return payload in both connected and disconnected scenarios, which is valuable given there is no output schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then detail the two possible outcomes. No wasted words, and 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?

For a simple, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers both return states and mentions URLs. It could elaborate on the meaning of 'pending' or URL formats, but it is sufficiently complete for 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter responsibility. Per rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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, and differentiates between the two possible states (all connected vs. missing credentials). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, which likely performs authentication 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 implies usage for checking connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like authenticate. It lacks exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, so 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, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond these: no platform credentials required, payment via prepaid credit, data is not confidential, and client is data controller under LGPD. It does not contradict annotations and meaningfully enhances the agent's understanding of costs, authentication, and legal responsibilities.

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 paragraph that front-loads the tool's purpose and then adds necessary operational details (payment, credentials, LGPD). Every sentence contributes information; there is no repetition or fluff. It could be slightly more compact, but it is appropriately sized for the 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?

The description covers operational and legal aspects but lacks essential information about input parameters and expected output. Without an output schema, it does not describe what the query returns, nor does it define 'placa' and 'ait'. This gap prevents the agent from fully understanding tool behavior, especially given the lack of parameter semantics.

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 provides no information about the two required parameters 'placa' and 'ait'. The schema only gives type (string) and required status, leaving the agent to guess their meaning (likely license plate and traffic infraction notice). The description fails to compensate, making parameter usage unclear.

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 'Pesquisa de Indicação do Condutor Infrator' (query of infracting driver indication) from an official DER SP source. It clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes it from generic sibling platform tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) which serve unrelated functions.

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

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

The description provides operational context (hosted by platform, no credentials needed, prepaid credit required, LGPD compliance) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since siblings are unrelated, no alternative query tool exists, but the description would benefit from specifying the exact use case (e.g., for checking driver indication status using plates and AIT).

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 discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: invoke runs tools even when not installed, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, and avoids bloating the tool list. It explains the one-off vs permanent distinction and flags permission requirements. These details add significant context and align with the readOnlyHint=false (writes possible) annotation 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 a long block of text (~250 words) that covers many concepts and actions. While it is front-loaded with the core flow and contains essential information, it is not concise or well-structured (no bullets or clear separation between MCP actions and prompt library). Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeated emphasis on invoke).

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

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

For a complex meta-tool with 23 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly comprehensive. It explains the core workflow, edge cases (credentials, payment), permission requirements, and even the separate prompt library functionality. It lacks precise return format details, but given the dynamic nature of outputs and no output schema, the description provides enough context to use the tool effectively.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not systematically explain most of the 23 parameters. While it mentions tool_id, mcp_id, and the action enum implicitly via the flow, it leaves parameters like immediate, tier_slug, conversation, prompt_vars, etc. unexplained. Given the low coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately for the large parameter set.

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 its role as the official MCP marketplace and clearly outlines the core flow (search → describe → invoke). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by covering both catalog discovery and execution, and even separates the prompt library. The verb 'marketplace' is clarified with specific actions and resource types.

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

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: prefer invoke for one-off usage, use install for permanent additions, and notes that list_tools shows currently callable tools. It also specifies that writes require owner/admin permissions, and differentiates the prompt library usage from MCP actions. This covers choice of action and 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?

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, meaning repeated calls are safe, and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds the key behavioral detail that a conversation array should be included for reproduction, but it does not disclose expected side effects (e.g., that this may create a support ticket, send a network request, or require authentication) beyond that.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose and then the key instruction for reproduction. It is efficient and immediately useful, though it could have used a comma or semicolon for clarity between the two clauses.

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 params, no output schema, and minimal annotations. The description is adequate for a reporting tool: it mentions the purpose and the key conversation input. However, it lacks details on expected return values, error cases, or how the system processes the message, which would be helpful for an agent deciding whether to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters. Yet it does not explain the 'message' parameter's role or format, nor does it describe what 'context' or 'conversation' mean beyond the conversation array hint. The description adds minimal semantic value over the schema's property names.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: to report bugs, missing features, or send feedback, and explicitly mentions including a conversation array for reproduction. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version, though not as sharply as naming a specific alternative.

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 provides a clear hint for when to use the tool (for reporting bugs/feedback) and what to include (conversation array). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools for other types of requests, so guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds what versions are shown but no additional behavioral context like output format or potential side effects, which is acceptable for a simple read-only tool.

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, clear sentence without unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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

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

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete for understanding its purpose. It clearly states what versions are shown, and there is no additional complexity requiring more 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and none is required.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and a clear resource ('the current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace' by focusing on version information.

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 the tool (when you need to check versions), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. Given the simplicity of the tool and lack of similar siblings, this is clear enough, but not fully explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds value by disclosing the compositional behavior—the tool reports on multiple subsystems (MCPs, accounts, catalogs) and the relational detail of which accounts connect to which MCP. It could be improved by stating whether it triggers a refresh or is cached, but the degree of behavioral disclosure is solid for a read-only info tool.

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

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

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then uses a colon to enumerate the specific data dimensions. Every clause adds new, relevant information with zero 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 0-parameter info tool with no output schema, the description fully conveys what is returned: MCPs, statuses, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It lacks explicit mention of whether results are live or cached, and doesn't disclose any prerequisites (e.g., whether authentication via sibling 'authenticate' is needed first), but for its complexity class (pure read/state query), it is substantially 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (trivially), the baseline per rubric is 4. The description correctly omits parameter discussion while earning a small credit for clarifying that no input is needed to retrieve the compound state report.

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') plus a clear resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates the exact aspects returned: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This fully disambiguates it from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'show_version' by detailing the return payload.

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

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

The description makes the tool's purpose self-evident through concrete context (state introspection across MCPs, accounts, catalog). However, it doesn't explicitly call out when not to use it or contrast with the closest sibling 'show_version,' leaving some room for ambiguity regarding version/state overlap. Clear context, no exclusions stated.

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