DETRAN PR: Multas (Extrato)

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, explaining that calling with no args returns a login link and that the config method yields a 'permanent, non-expiring connection.' It could further explain side effects of repeated calls or token overwriting, but it provides solid context.

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 and packed with actionable information, though the second sentence is a bit run-on and could be split for readability.

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 an authentication tool with a single optional parameter, the description covers both usage modes and the resulting behaviors (link, session vs permanent). It lacks only explicit error handling or state-reset info, which is acceptable given 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains the 'token' parameter as a JWT to be pasted, and the no-arg call for a link. This fully compensates for the missing schema description.

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 authentication entry point for MCP.AI IDE agents, explaining both browser login and token usage. It differentiates from siblings like 'connect' by focusing solely on obtaining/using an auth token.

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 provides explicit instructions on when to call with no args (to get the link) and when to pass a token (after the user pastes it). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full alternatives coverage.

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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context about the output format in two distinct scenarios (authenticated:true/empty pending vs connect_url), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and each sentence provides meaningful information. No waste, efficient and clear.

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 is sufficiently complete for a simple status tool with no parameters and annotations covering safety. It explains the two main states (all connected vs missing credentials) but could optionally mention partial connection behavior or URL format. Given the simplicity, it's nearly 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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema has no properties, so coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-param tools is 4, which is appropriate here as there is nothing to add.

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 behavior for all-connected vs missing-credentials cases. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than the authentication flow.

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 for checking connectivity status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'authenticate'). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though the context with zero parameters suggests a read-only status check.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description aligns with that by calling it a consulta. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: official data source, no platform credentials, prepaid credit cost, non-classified data, and LGPD data controller responsibilities.

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 starts with the main function and keeps the whole text short. The subsequent payments and LGPD context are relevant but mostly boilerplate; every sentence is still useful, though not perfectly tight.

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 output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description does not provide enough operational detail to invoke the tool reliably. It does not explain what the returned extrato contains, how the PKCS#12 certificate/password should be handled, or how the payment/credit requirement affects a call.

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, but it never explains renavam, pkcs12_cert, or pkcs12_pass. The agent is left with only the raw property names and no format, relationship, or purpose for these required inputs.

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 a DETRAN-PR fine statement query against an official source, using an explicit query verb and resource. It does not name an alternative DETRAN-like tool because the siblings are generic platform tools, but it stops short of stating what is returned or how RENAVAM is used.

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 intended usage is implied: use it to consult DETRAN-PR multas/extrato from an official source, with the caveat that it is paid per query. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative recommendation, so the guidance is not as strong as it could be.

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?

Beyond annotations, the description reveals key behaviors: 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed — it runs the tool pontualmente (one-off), without adding the MCP to the toolkit,' and 'If the MCP needs a credential/login, invoke returns a connect link; if it is paid and the wallet is empty, invoke returns a checkout/top-up link.' It also notes that writes require owner/admin, and that search/describe flag installed status.

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 but well-structured: it leads with the main purpose, then presents the core flow, followed by key nuances (one-off invocation, permissions), then additional actions, and finally the prompt library. Every sentence adds substantive information, and the structure uses logical breaks to group related concepts.

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 output schema, the description explains what to expect from key actions: describe returns full MCP profiles, invoke returns connect/checkout links, publish_prompt returns a shareable link. It covers authentication, billing, admin permissions, and the distinction between one-off and permanent installation. It also mentions the prompt library feature, making the tool's full scope clear.

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 partially compensates by explaining the critical action parameter and core arguments (tool_id, arguments, mcp_id). It describes the conceptual flow of action=search, describe, invoke, install, and prompt-related parameters. However, many parameters (limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, etc.) are not explicitly explained, so it only covers the most essential semantics.

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 defines the tool as 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It specifies the core capabilities (search, describe, invoke, install) and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by describing its unique role as a marketplace and runtime, not just a simple utility.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Core flow: action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile ... so you pick the right tool_id → invoke RUNS that tool.' It also states when to use invoke vs install ('Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit ... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use'), and covers list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and prompt library actions.

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 indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with a non-mutating report action. The description adds that the conversation array should be included for reproduction, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention any side effects like storing feedback or rate limits, but annotations already cover safety profile.

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, front-loaded with purpose and a key hint. No 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?

With no output schema and partial parameter coverage, the description is adequate but missing details on 'context' usage and any response or follow-up behavior. Given the simplicity and annotations, it's minimally viable 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 mentions the conversation array but not the 'context' parameter. The description clarifies 'message' is the main content and 'conversation' is for reproduction, but 'context' is undocumented in both schema (only default) and description, missing semantics.

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 reports bugs, missing features, or feedback, with a specific resource (the conversation array). It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace by focusing on feedback/reporting.

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 implies usage for reporting issues and feedback, but doesn't explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or any exclusion criteria. The sibling tools are different enough that purpose alone suffices, but no explicit guidance on context.

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, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the platform/adapter scope but does not disclose output format, potential error cases, or any other behavioral nuances.

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 that clearly states the action and target. Every word earns its place; 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?

This is a low-complexity, parameterless, read-only version-inspection tool with rich annotations. The description is sufficiently complete for the intended use, though it could have briefly stated what the output contains if no output schema is available.

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, which is the baseline 4 case. Schema coverage is effectively 100% because the schema is empty, so the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 identifies the exact resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like toolkit_info, but the scope is sufficiently distinct.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as toolkit_info or when version information is needed. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description, with no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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 well covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what state is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. 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 sentence that packs all necessary information without waste. It front-loads the purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then enumerates the specific elements returned. No filler or 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, read-only informational tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns in sufficient detail. There's no output schema, but the description enumerates the return contents clearly. It could potentially mention whether the state is real-time or cached, but that's 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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return value 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 clearly states the tool returns the current toolkit state, listing specific elements: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it 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 this is a read-only informational tool for checking toolkit state, which is clear context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but given the sibling tools are action-oriented (authenticate, connect, report_bug), the usage context is reasonably clear.

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