DETRAN ES: Emissão de Documento Único de Arrecadação (DUA)

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false. The description explains behavior: it provides a link if no args, expects token after pasting, and mentions permanent vs session-only. However, it does not describe exactly what happens after login (e.g., session establishment) or any side effects, which would add value. No 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 single but dense paragraph, front-loaded with the target audience and primary action. It could be broken into bullets for clarity, but every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool is a simple authentication with one optional param and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: how to call, what to pass, and the two login modes. It misses details like what the returned link looks like or error handling, but overall adequate.

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 description must compensate. It does: explains token is a JWT and the three calling modes (with token, without args, and adding to config). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'token' string.

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 purpose: authenticate for IDE agents by logging in and obtaining a token, with options for permanent or session-only configuration. It includes the verb 'log in', specific resource (this server), and differentiates from siblings by focusing on browser login and token handling. It is not a tautology.

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 explicit usage scenarios: for permanent connection add to config as header, or call with token for session-only, or call without args to get link. It implies when to use (when user needs to authenticate) but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives among siblings.

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 behavioral context: it explains the two possible states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and what fields are returned (authenticated, pending, connect_url). This goes beyond annotations by describing the response structure and 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and provides conditional details efficiently. 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations cover safety, the description is complete enough. It explains the two states and what URLs are returned. It could mention the format of URLs or whether the response includes other fields, but for a simple status tool, this is adequate.

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% (vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameters. It adds value by explaining the output semantics, which is more relevant here. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that.

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 distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate and toolkit_info by focusing on status and URLs. It could be more specific about the exact resource (e.g., 'connection status for the toolkit'), but it is 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 implies usage: use this to check connection status and get URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (authenticate, toolkit_info) suggests it is for status checks. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are 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?

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations. It discloses that the tool is hosted on the platform, does not require platform credentials, has a per-query cost with prepaid credit, queries official Brazilian public sources, and emphasizes LGPD compliance with the client as data controller. This is highly transparent and complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 concise, with three sentences covering purpose, hosting/payment model, and compliance. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. Slightly verbose legal wording ('LGPD') is acceptable given its relevance, but it remains focused.

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 purpose, pricing, and compliance but omits details about the response format, error handling, or how to interpret the DUA data. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, this is adequate but not exhaustive. It explains the 'why' (compliance) but not the full operational context.

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 provides no explanation of the parameters (placa, renavam, login_cpf, etc.) and does not clarify their format or purpose. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not. The mention of 'sem credenciais da plataforma' could confuse users about the login_cpf/pkcs12 fields, as it does not clarify how these are used.

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: querying/emitting a DUA (Documento Único de Arrecadação) from DETRAN ES via an official source. The verb 'consulta' and resource 'DUA' are specific. Although sibling tools are unrelated, the description distinguishes this tool by describing its domain (DETRAN ES) and function, making it clear what it does.

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 by explaining the tool is hosted on the platform, requires no platform credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credits. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It gives context about the execution environment but lacks direct guidance on when to choose 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 substantially expands on the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false). It discloses side effects such as one-off execution without installing, credential/checkout redirect flows with retry instructions, permanent installation behavior, and owner/admin requirements for writes. These are behavioral traits not inferable from the annotations alone, providing strong transparency.

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 information-dense; every sentence adds value, covering actions, edge cases, billing, prompts, and permissions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and flows well, though it runs as a single long paragraph that could benefit from clearer segmentation for readability. It is appropriately sized for 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?

Given no output schema and high complexity (14 actions, 23 params), the description explains the outcome for most major actions (search discovers, describe returns profile, invoke runs, get_prompt returns text, publish_prompt returns link). It also covers permissions and external dependencies. Gaps include explicit return formats for list_tools, subscribe/cancel, and search_prompts, but overall the behavioral context is sufficiently complete for agent selection.

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 compensates by explaining core parameters: action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments (via 'invoke RUNS that tool'), and prompt variables (via 'get_prompt returns its full text with {{variables}} filled'). However, several parameters like limit, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_targets, and request_details are not explicitly described, relying on naming conventions. The main workflow is well covered, but full parameter semantics are not exhaustive.

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' — the central catalog and execution hub for MCPs, with named actions (search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, prompt library). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the in-platform catalog and runner, and explicitly enumerates its varied capabilities, making the 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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Core flow: action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile... → invoke RUNS that tool.' It contrasts invoke vs install ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'), notes permission requirements for writes, and recommends alternatives like report_bug and request_mcp when nothing fits. This goes beyond simple context to explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use 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 indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds that the conversation is needed for reproduction, but does not explain what happens after reporting, any transmission/storage behavior, or other 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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and the second gives the critical usage detail. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 bug-report tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core intent and the main reproduction detail. However, the 'context' parameter is unexplained, and the conversation type mismatch could confuse an agent. It is minimally adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of the 'conversation' parameter, but does not clarify 'message' or 'context' beyond the general reporting intent. It also refers to a 'conversation array' while the schema defines it as a string, adding 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 names a specific action ('report') and a clear resource: bugs, missing features, and feedback. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like marketplace or show_version by its explicit bug/feedback domain.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (to report a bug, missing feature, or feedback) and provides a key usage instruction: include recent messages/conversation for reproduction. It does not explicitly discuss exclusions, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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 need not repeat these safety traits. It adds the detail that both platform and adapter versions are shown, but does not disclose any other behavioral aspects (e.g., return format, authentication needs). No contradiction exists.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly and completely captures the tool's action in a compact form.

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 simplicity, the description is complete. It states exactly what the tool returns ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), which suffices in the absence of an output schema. The annotations provide safety context, and no further details are necessary.

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, making schema coverage trivially 100%. The description correctly avoids mentioning parameters, and there is nothing more to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, which fits here.

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 the specific verb 'Show' with a clear resource: 'current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This unambiguously states what the tool does and naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplace, which have entirely 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For a simple version check this is a minor gap, but it still lacks explicit usage 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying exactly what state is retrieved (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). No contradiction; consistent with read-only 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?

Single, front-loaded sentence that fully describes the tool's output without redundancy. Every clause adds distinct information (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count). 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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool returns. The list of returned information is complete and unambiguous. No additional context needed for the 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?

Tool has zero parameters secreting in schema, so description need not explain any. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description appropriately omits parameter details as none exist.

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 uses specific verb 'Returns' with the resource 'current toolkit state' and enumerates exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate/connect by being an informational read tool.

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 and applicability implicit ('Returns the current toolkit state'), which is clear for a read-only info tool. No alternative tools are explicitly named, but the context implies when to use it versus action-oriented siblings. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so not a 5.

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