DETRAN AL: Renajud

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

The annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructive behavior; the description adds meaningful context about permanent vs. session-only logins and that no-args invocation returns the login link. It does not explain failure modes or security considerations, but the additional context is valuable and consistent with 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—three sentences—and front-loads the core action: 'log in in the browser, copy the access token.' Every sentence contributes useful information, though the phrasing is slightly run-on and could be tightened.

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 optional-token auth tool, the description covers browser login, permanent vs. session-only options, call formats, and link retrieval via no-args. It does not describe the response after a successful token exchange or error behavior, but the absence of an output schema lowers the burden.

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 offers only an undescribed optional 'token' string with 0% coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that token should be a JWT, shows the exact call syntax, and clarifies that omitting the token yields the login link. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 this as an authentication/login tool: 'log in in the browser, copy the access token' and explains the call modes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'connect', which could serve a related purpose.

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 explicit usage guidance: call with no args to get a login link, call with { token: '<jwt>' } after the user pastes a token, and configure a permanent header for non-expiring access. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but it covers the main modes well.

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 false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the conditional return values (authenticated:true vs connect_url), which goes 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful detail about the return values. 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 simple parameterless status tool with no output schema, the description covers the key scenarios. It explains the happy path and missing-credentials path, but does not explicitly state whether authenticated:false is also returned, or describe all possible fields.

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 correctly omits any parameter details since there are none to explain.

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 a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like authenticate by focusing on status reporting, not 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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (to check connection status), and describes the two main scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this 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?

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that this is a paid service (pre-paid credits), requires no platform credentials, returns non-confidential data, and places LGPD compliance responsibility on the client. These are valuable behavioral traits not captured in annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). There is 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?

The description is a single, run-on sentence that packs a lot of information (purpose, hosting, payment, legal notice). It front-loads the purpose effectively but lacks structured breaks, making it somewhat dense. It could be improved by splitting into separate sentences for clarity, but it's not 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?

Given the lack of an output schema and sparse parameter definitions, the description should have explained what information is returned from a Renajud query. It does mention 'informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais', but that's vague. It also omits any details about response format or data fields. While it provides legal and payment context, it falls short of being a complete description for a query tool with two unexplained parameters.

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 makes no mention of the parameters 'placa' and 'renavam', and the schema provides no descriptions either (0% schema coverage). Since the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning in this case, the complete absence of any explanation renders this dimension severely deficient.

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 queries Renajud via DETRAN AL, an official Brazilian source. The verb 'consulta' and resource 'Renajud' are explicit, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (none of which are related to vehicle data queries). However, it doesn't explicitly state what kind of information is returned beyond being from official sources, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The description mentions payment and legal aspects but does not explain under what circumstances an agent should choose this tool over others. The only implicit context is that it's for Renajud queries, but no comparative or conditional guidance 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?

With annotations only providing generic flags (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, etc.), the description carries the burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that invoke runs the tool one-off without adding the MCP to the toolkit or bloating the tool list, that install makes an MCP permanent, and that writes like install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel require owner/admin. It also explains connect and checkout links, which are important behavioral outcomes.

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 and information-rich, leading with the core flow and then layering key nuances (invoke vs install, auth/billing, permissions, prompt library). It avoids redundancy and every sentence adds value, though the single-paragraph format could benefit from bullet points or section breaks for easier parsing.

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 14 actions, 23 parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the major workflows, permissions, billing, and the prompt library exceptionally well. It is missing explicit output shapes for actions like search, describe, and list_tools, and does not discuss error handling or rate limits, but the core invocation paths are well covered.

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 0% description coverage and 23 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the central action parameter and core flow (search, describe, invoke, install) and gives meaning to tool_id, mcp_id, arguments, and prompt_vars implicitly. However, many parameters such as limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, prompt_targets, report_context, and request_details are not individually explained, leaving gaps for correct parameter 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 opens with 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them,' giving a specific verb and resource. It then enumerates all core actions (search, describe, invoke, install) and distinguishes invoke from install, making the tool's purpose and differentiation from siblings clear.

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 states when to use invoke vs install ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use'), defines list_tools as 'what is callable right now,' and provides conditional flows for credential/login and payment situations ('if it is paid and the wallet is empty, invoke returns a checkout/top-up link'). It also notes that writes require workspace owner/admin, giving clear usage boundaries.

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 annotations indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and is idempotent, but the description does not explain side effects or what happens after reporting (e.g., whether it sends data or files an issue). Additionally, the description says 'conversation array' while the schema defines it as a string, creating confusion about the expected format.

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, consisting of two short sentences. It gets to the point without extraneous information. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from the parameter instruction, but overall it is 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?

The description lacks details about expected behavior, return values, or error scenarios. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at the outcome (e.g., confirmation). It also does not address optional params or provide examples, leaving the tool under-explained.

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 only mentions the 'conversation' parameter, advising to include recent messages for reproduction. It does not explain the purpose or format of 'message' or 'context'. With zero schema descriptions, the lack of parameter guidance leaves users guessing. The brief hint about conversation is the only parameter-related information provided.

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: reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback. It uses a verb ('report') and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from the unrelated sibling tools. However, 'send feedback' is somewhat broad and could include general inquiries, but it is still clear enough.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over others or any situational context. It only instructs to include the conversation array, which is more about parameter usage than a usage guideline. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions that would make this tool appropriate.

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 safety profile is known. The description adds that it reports both platform and adapter versions, which is useful output context. It does not contradict annotations and provides just enough beyond them.

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, concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's action and scope. No fluff, perfectly 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 parameters, comprehensive safety annotations, and a trivial output (list of versions), the description fully covers what the agent needs. There is no missing information about behavior or return format that would hinder 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?

There are zero parameters, so the parameter schema is trivial and the description correctly omits any parameter details. No additional meaning is needed; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 MCP platform and adapter versions, using a specific verb 'show' and a clear resource. It is immediately obvious what this tool does and it is distinct from siblings like toolkit_info which likely covers broader info.

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?

While no explicit when-to-use guidance is given, the purpose is self-evident: call this to check versions. The context of sibling tools implies it is for a quick version query. It is clear and not misleading, though it does not contrast with alternatives explicitly.

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 useful behavioral detail about what state is reported, including connection status and account associations, going beyond the bare annotation hints.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then lists the specific data returned. No filler or redundant wording is present.

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 fully explains what the tool returns, and since there is no output schema, the explicit enumeration of returned contents compensates adequately.

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 parameter semantics are not applicable. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to clarify; the schema coverage is trivially complete.

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 identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version by specifying the broader state information returned.

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 used when you need an overview of toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like show_version or authenticate. There is no exclusion guidance or mention of related tools.

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