DETRAN AM: Veículo

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

Reveals persistence behavior: permanent/non-expiring via config header vs session-only via pasted token. Also discloses that calling with no args gives a link. This goes beyond annotations which already note idempotent/non-destructive.

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, somewhat dense but each clause serves a function. Could be slightly more concise but not padded.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the entire flow: login, token handling, permanent vs session, and the no-arg behavior. It does not discuss error handling but is adequate for an auth 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 only parameter token is explained as the JWT to paste, and the no-args case is described to get a link. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description is essential and covers both cases.

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 authentication flow: 'log in in the browser, copy the access token' and explains the two invocation modes (with token or no args). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or marketplace by focusing solely on 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?

Provides guidance on two usage options: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header...' vs 'Or paste it here for a session-only login'. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools but gives clear context on when to use each mode.

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, covering safety. The description adds conditional behavioral detail: what happens when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing, explaining the response content (authenticated:true and empty pending[] vs connect_url and per-install URLs). This goes beyond annotations but does not mention rate limits or authentication prerequisites, which are not critical for this 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 two sentences long, tightly written, and front-loaded with the primary action ('Returns connection status and URLs'). It then explains the conditional outcomes without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it excellent conciseness.

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, no output schema, and is a simple status check, the description is complete. It explains the two expected response scenarios, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. There are no hidden edge cases or complex behavior to disclose, and the description covers the core use case thoroughly.

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 schema is fully covered (100% coverage). With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4 even without parameter info. The description does not mention parameters, but that is irrelevant; the tool takes no input. It correctly focuses on the output behavior instead.

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' with a clear resource ('connection status and URLs'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status checks rather than establishing connections. It also explains the two possible outcomes (all connected vs missing credentials), making the 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 clearly implies this is for checking connection status, and the sibling 'authenticate' suggests the alternative for establishing connections. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others, such as 'use this to check status before authenticating' or contrast with alternatives. It provides context (two states) but no explicit when/when-not 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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: the tool is hosted by the platform, requires prepaid credit, returns the same information available to citizens (not confidential), and places LGPD data-control obligations on the client. 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first phrase and remains compact. Each sentence adds relevant information about official sourcing, payment model, data sensitivity, and LGPD responsibility. The legal boilerplate is somewhat dense but still contributes context.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read-only lookup with solid annotations and no output schema. The description covers the source, cost model, access requirements, legal/controller role, and non-confidential nature of the data. It could be slightly stronger about expected return contents and parameter format, but for this complexity level it is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'placa' or 'renavam.' While these are domain-standard Brazilian vehicle identifiers, the description carries the full burden here and fails to describe their format, meaning, or why both are 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 opens with 'DETRAN AM: Veículo, consulta em fonte oficial,' clearly identifying the resource (DETRAN-AM vehicle data) and the operation (consultation/query). This directly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are about authentication, marketplace, reporting bugs, 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 gives clear context for use: it is a paid per-query lookup against an official Brazilian source, requires no platform credentials, and uses prepaid credit. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling context makes the appropriate use case evident.

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 critical behavioral traits not captured by annotations, such as admin requirements for writes, the connect/checkout link flows for invoke, and that invoke runs one-off without adding to the toolkit. It also clarifies the side effects of install. This richly supplements the minimal annotations and contains no contradictions.

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 dense, single-paragraph wall of text that covers a highly complex multi-action tool. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses capitalization for key points, but the lack of bullet points or section breaks makes it harder to scan. It is not concise, though the length is somewhat justified by the breadth of functionality.

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 primary marketplace flows, invoke-vs-install semantics, auth/billing scenarios, and the prompt library, which is substantial for a tool with 14 actions. However, some actions like 'resume' and 'uninstall' receive only a passing mention, and response formats for several actions are unspecified. Overall, it provides enough for correct selection and invocation 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It effectively explains the 'action' enum values and the core parameters like mcp_id, tool_id, and prompt_slug within the flow. However, many of the 23 parameters (e.g., immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason) are not individually described, leaving some gap in full semantic coverage.

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 and catalog for MCPs/tools, while also positioning it as the way to run them. It distinguishes itself from siblings by outlining the unique search/describe/invoke flow and the actions available. The verb and resource are specific, and it covers the full scope of the tool's capabilities.

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 guidance on when to use invoke vs install, stating 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'. It also explains when to choose report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt library actions, offering a clear decision framework. This goes beyond simple context and gives direct alternatives and exclusions.

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 do not include readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, but the description itself indicates the message is transmitted as a report, which is a write-like action. It also instructs the caller to include a 'conversation array' for reproduction, adding behavioral context. However, it does not disclose the response format, whether a report ID is returned, or any side effects such as user notification, so transparency is partial.

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 only two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second gives the one critical usage tip. There is no filler, no redundant schema repetition, and the structure is easily digestible.

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 a single required parameter and no nested objects, the description provides enough context to formulate a bug report and indicates what to include for reproduction. The absence of output schema makes return value description less important, though a brief note about what the user should expect after submission would have made it fully 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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It does explain that 'conversation' should contain recent messages for reproduction, adding meaning to an otherwise opaque string parameter. However, the description calls it an 'array' when the schema defines it as a string, and it does not mention the optional 'context' parameter at all, leaving semantic 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 opens with the specific verb 'Report' and specifies the resource types: 'a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This directly states what the tool does and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'marketplace' or 'show_version', which serve entirely different purposes. It is unambiguous and actionable.

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 clear intended context: use the tool to submit a bug report, feature request, or general feedback. The additional instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction tells the user what information to include. It does not mention alternate tools or explicit when-not scenarios, but none of the sibling tools overlap with this report/feedback function, so the guidance is sufficient.

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 already declare the tool as readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds specificity about what versions are shown (MCP platform and adapter), which is useful but minimal. No contradictions or additional behavioral details 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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and is perfectly concise for a parameterless 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (platform and adapter versions). It is complete for the simplicity of the tool, though it doesn't elaborate on potential output formats or errors, but that's not critical here.

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 IAW the input schema (empty properties). Per rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets baseline 4, and the description doesn't need to explain parameters. It correctly focuses on the output.

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 ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or detran_consultar, which clearly have 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 description implies usage (when you need to check current versions), but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusion scenarios. It is not misleading, but it lacks explicit direction.

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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific information returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not detail any potential output size or if it could be slow, and it doesn't explain how 'connection status' is determined. Given strong annotations, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the key function ('Returns the current toolkit state'). It includes specific details about what is contained in that state, making every word count. This is an excellent example of conciseness without losing informativeness.

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 that this is a simple info tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns and the scope (toolkit state, connections, catalog tools). It does not need to elaborate on return format since there is no output schema, but it could mention potential size or structure. However, the description 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?

With zero parameters, there are no parameter semantics to document, so the description is not required to explain parameters. It clearly states what is returned, which provides semantic content beyond the schema. This justifies a baseline 4 for zero-param tools as the description effectively communicates the sole purpose.

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 returns the current toolkit state and specifies what that includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, connect, and show_version. A slight deduction because it doesn't explicitly mention what the return value contains beyond a summary, but the purpose is 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 implies that this is for checking the current state of the toolkit, which is a typical use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it as opposed to alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions under which it should not be used. Since this is likely a diagnostic/info tool, the usage context is clear enough, but no direct alternatives are named.

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