DETRAN PI: Veículo, consulta em fonte oficial. Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais da plataforma, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago. Consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros (a mesma disponível ao cidadão), não é dado sigiloso. O cliente é o controlador dos dados e responde pela finalidade legítima (LGPD).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| placa | Yes | ||
| renavam | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: payment requirement, absence of platform credentials, official-source nature, and data controller responsibilities under LGPD. No contradiction exists between description and 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 front-loaded, opening with the core purpose and then adding payment and legal context. There is slight redundancy between 'consulta em fonte oficial' and the later sentence about 'fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros', but overall each clause contributes meaningful information without padding.
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 simple two-parameter lookup and lack of output schema, the description provides sufficient operational context: how to pay, what data source is used, and legal obligations. It does not explicitly describe the response shape or error conditions, but the phrase 'consulta informação... oficiais' implies the tool returns official vehicle data, which is likely adequate for this simple 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 two required string parameters (placa, renavam) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain their meaning, format, or expected values. Although the names are recognizable in Brazilian Portuguese, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, making parameter usage ambiguous for agents unfamiliar with domain terms.
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 vehicle consultation ('Veículo, consulta em fonte oficial') using official Brazilian sources, which is a specific verb and resource. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace', which are unrelated platform 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 clear usage context: the tool is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credit. It also advises that data is non-confidential and subject to LGPD compliance, which informs when it is appropriate to use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools are mostly distinct, but connect and toolkit_info overlap in reporting connection status, with toolkit_info being a superset. marketplace is a large multi-capability tool but clearly separate from the vehicle query tool.
Naming is inconsistent: English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a long Portuguese snake_case name (detran_pi_veiculo_consultar) are all mixed, with no clear convention.
Although 7 tools is a reasonable count, the server's stated purpose is vehicle consultation, but only one tool serves that domain. The other six are generic platform management tools, making the set poorly scoped for its apparent intent.
For the named domain, the surface is severely incomplete—only a single query operation exists, with no supporting operations. The platform-related tools do not fill domain gaps, so the set lacks coherent coverage of any single purpose.