DETRAN MA: Licenciamento

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

The description discloses two operational modes (token vs. link) and the distinction between session-only and permanent authentication, adding context beyond the annotations (which already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness). It doesn't contradict annotations, but could mention success/failure 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 somewhat verbose but well-organized, starting with the purpose, then presenting the preferred permanent method, then the session option and the no-args case. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly 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?

The description covers the main usage flows but does not specify the return value (e.g., the exact content of the link) or error handling (e.g., invalid token). Given the absence of an output schema, these details would improve completeness, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 provides no description for the 'token' parameter (coverage 0%), but the description fully explains its meaning: it is a JWT for session login, and its absence triggers a link response. This compensates completely for the lack of schema 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 states that this tool handles authentication by either providing a browser login link or accepting a token. It explicitly mentions 'log in' and 'token', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace' 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 description gives explicit usage instructions: call with no arguments to get a link, or with a token for session login. It also recommends a permanent configuration method (adding to config) as the best practice, effectively telling when to use this tool versus the alternative, and when not to (for permanent setup).

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 and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful context by explaining the conditional response behavior (authenticated vs missing credentials) and the inclusion of connect_url. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs') and then details conditional behavior. Every sentence contributes information without 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the main return states and special cases. It could be enhanced by noting how it relates to the 'authenticate' sibling tool or by describing the URL structure, but it is reasonably 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 zero parameters, so the schema fully covers all parameters (100% coverage). The description does not need to add parameter details; 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 returns connection status and URLs, with specific output conditions (authenticated:true vs connect_url). It is specific about the resource but does not explicitly name alternative tools like authenticate, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 to check connection status by describing its outputs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like authenticate, nor does it mention any exclusions or 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 already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing payment requirements (prepaid credit) and LGPD data controller responsibilities, which are not in annotations. 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 single paragraph of moderate length. It front-loads the core purpose but then adds legal and payment details that, while relevant, could be more concise. It is not overly verbose but lacks a clear, structured breakdown.

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 read-only query tool with two params and no output schema, the description covers payment, legal responsibility, and official source. However, it fails to explain the parameters (placa and renavam) and what the response contains, leaving gaps for an agent to understand expected inputs and outputs.

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 has 2 required string parameters (placa, renavam) with 0% description coverage. The tool description provides no explanation of these parameters, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance. For a 0% coverage case, the description must compensate, and it does not.

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 licensing information from DETRAN MA, an official source. It distinguishes from siblings (which are platform utilities) by specifying the resource (licensing) and the verb (consultar). However, it could be more specific about what exact data is returned, so not a 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?

The description implies usage for querying official licensing data and mentions it requires prepaid credit. It does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. Siblings are unrelated, so context is clear 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?

With minimal annotations (only readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.), the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so richly. It states that writes require workspace owner/admin, that invoke runs a tool one-off without installing it or bloating the tool list, and that install makes an MCP permanent. It also explains the prompt library's shareable links work without login. 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 long (over 250 words) but every sentence adds essential information about a multi-action tool. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and flows into details. It is a single dense paragraph—breaking it into bullets would improve readability, but it is not bloated or redundant. It earns its length given 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?

For a tool with 14 actions, 23 parameters, no output schema, and only basic annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the core flow, edge cases (auth and payment), permission requirements, and the prompt library. It falls short only in not describing the exact response formats and leaving several secondary parameters undocumented, but it still provides a solid mental model for an agent to use the 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 schema has 23 parameters with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for key parameters through the workflow (e.g., action, query, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, prompt_vars), but many parameters like limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, prompt_targets, and conversation remain unexplained. The description gives a strong semantic core but does not fully document all parameters, leaving significant 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 clearly identifies the tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace, a catalog of MCPs/tools and the mechanism to run them. It specifies the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and enumerates distinct actions like install, subscribe, and prompt library operations, making its purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or report_bug.

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 each action, e.g., 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'. It also describes conditional behavior—returning connect or checkout links when credentials or payment are needed—and instructs to retry after the user completes the action. This clearly differentiates between alternatives like list_tools and invoke.

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=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive, idempotent action. The description adds the requirement to include the conversation array, which is a behavioral expectation beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., response format, ticket creation). The description contributes some context, but the burden is partially met by annotations, so a 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Report a bug') and immediately following with the key usage instruction. No filler or redundant information, every word earns its place. This is an optimal length for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple (3 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential purpose and provides a key usage detail. It does not elaborate on the optional 'context' param or post-submission behavior, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward bug-reporting tool. The description is sufficiently complete for its complexity, so a 4 is suitable.

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?

While the schema has 3 parameters and 0% description coverage, the description partially explains 'message' (as the report content) and 'conversation' (as recent messages for reproduction). It does not clarify the 'context' parameter, which remains unnamed. The description adds meaning to two of the three params, but not fully, so a score of 3 reflects partial compensation for the schema gap.

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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplace, which are unrelated to bug reporting. The mention of including the conversation array further specifies the exact action expected.

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 a clear usage directive: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' This tells the agent how to provide necessary context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but given that the siblings are unrelated, no exclusion is needed. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, warranting a 4.

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 description adds no contradiction)Skip. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide; it just restates the fact it returns version infoessen, which is standard. Since annotations cover safety and idempotency, a 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 sentence, front-loaded with the purpose. Every word earns its place; there's no fluff 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?

Given the zero-parameter complexity)Skip, the tool is simple enough that a one-sentence description is fully complete. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, and no output schema is present but the return is obvious (version strings).

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 0 parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description adds no parameter info needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional details 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses specific verbs and resources ('show', 'MCP platform and adapter versions') and is distinct from siblings like authenticate or connect.

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 it — whenever version info is needed. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but given the zero parameters and unique purpose, the context is clear. It could have mentioned it's for troubleshooting or checking compatibility, but not required.

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 covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what state is returned—installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts—which sets clear expectations beyond the annotations alone.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the verb and object, then lists the specific data categories. Every phrase contributes meaning and there is no 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 zero-parameter read-only tool with good annotations, the description gives a solid high-level inventory of what the return value contains. It could be slightly more detailed about the exact structure or possible status values, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand when and why to call this 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 has zero parameters, so per rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the return payload instead of parameters. No parameter clarification 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') followed by enumerated content: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This strongly differentiates it from sibling action-oriented tools like authenticate, connect, and report_bug.

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 this is the tool to call when the agent needs an overview of the toolkit's current state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. No alternative tools are named, though the read-only nature is implied by 'Returns'.

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