DETRAN RR: Débitos

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

The description explains the two modes: no args yields a link, token yields session login, and config header yields permanent connection. It adds context about permanence and session scope. Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description doesn't contradict them; it complements them with concrete 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 purpose. It includes necessary details without excessive verbosity. The structure is logical, though it could be broken into clearer clauses, but there is no wasteful content.

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 single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage scenarios (link, token, config), and parameter meaning. It also mentions the best practice of config header. It is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 zero description coverage for the 'token' parameter, but the description fully clarifies it: 'call with { token: "<jwt>" }' and explains the no-args case. This comprehensively compensates for the lack of parameter 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 it's for authentication: 'log in in the browser, copy the access token.' It specifies the resource (access token) and the action (authenticate). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'connect', which might handle a similar authentication flow, so it misses full 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?

It provides explicit usage instructions: 'call with { token: '<jwt>' } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.' It also mentions the config header option for a permanent connection. It does not compare with alternatives like 'connect', but the context is clear for when to use 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds value by explaining the different response states: one state returns authenticated:true with empty pending[], another returns connect_url for missing credentials. This provides behavioral context about what the tool returns in different scenarios, which is useful and goes 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 two sentences, concise and direct. It front-loads the action ('Returns connection status and URLs') and then explains the two states. There is no fluff, every word earns its place.

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 is quite complete: it explains the main purpose, the two possible return states, and the meaning of connect_url. It doesn't mention the format of URLs or explicit error cases, but for a simple status check tool, it's sufficient. The 4 reflects that it could add a bit more about what 'connection status' looks like in practice, but it's mostly 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 is trivially covered. The description explains that it returns connection status and URLs, which covers the output semantics. Since there are no parameters, the description doesn't need to explain them. A score of 4 is warranted because the description provides context about what the tool returns, even though it's about output rather than input 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 that the tool returns connection status and URLs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate (which likely establishes connections) and show_version/toolkit_info (which provide other metadata). It explains the meaning of 'authenticated:true' and empty pending[] vs. when credentials are missing, adding context about the resource (connection status). It could be a 5 if it explicitly differentiated from all siblings, but it's sufficient.

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 it's used to check connection status, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use this versus authenticate or other tools. The mention of 'when all providers are connected' and 'when credentials are missing' gives some context, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are stated. The sibling list includes authenticate, which might be used to establish connections, and the description doesn't guide when to call connect vs. authenticate.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which cover safety. The description adds that this is non-confidential data and that the client is the data controller per LGPD, providing additional context about data handling and legal responsibility, which goes 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?

Description is one concise paragraph, well-structured, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and context. 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 there's no output schema and annotations are minimal, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (payment, official source, LGPD). It could be more complete about what data is returned, but for a query tool with read-only hints, it's sufficient.

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 describes parameters: placa, renavam, and ait (optional). Description doesn't add extra parameter details. Schema coverage is 0%, so description could have compensated, but it doesn't. With 3 parameters, the schema itself is clear (placa and renavam are required, ait is optional). Baseline 3 is fair.

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 DETRAN RR debts from an official source. It specifies the resource (vehicle debts for Roraima) and the verb (consult). This distinguishes it from generic tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect', making it clear this is a data lookup 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 implies usage for legitimate purposes (with LGPD compliance mention) and mentions payment with prepaid credit, which sets expectations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives; there are no obvious sibling tools for debt queries, so it's adequate for 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?

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that invoke runs one-off without installing, that writes require workspace owner/admin, that search/describe flag installation status, and that invoke may return connect/checkout links. These are non-obvious, high-value behaviors not captured by readOnlyHint/openWorldHint.

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 every sentence earns its place for a tool with 14 actions. It is structured in a logical flow: what it is → core flow → key invoke behavior → installation guidance → billing/feedback/request actions → prompt library. No redundancy or filler; density is appropriate for 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?

Given the extremely high complexity (23 params, 14 actions, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers discovery, profiling, execution, auth/billing, workspace permissions, and an entirely separate prompt-library feature. Minor omissions like exact JSON format for arguments are trivial relative to the overall coverage.

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?

Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the meaning of the central 'action' parameter and key workflow params: action=search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt-related actions (search_prompts, get_prompt, publish_prompt). It also clarifies what invoke does with tool_id and arguments at a conceptual level, and orients the agent toward using the right action for a given user need.

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 identifies the tool as 'the official mcp.ai marketplace' and explicitly states it is the catalog of MCPs and the way to run them. It names specific actions (search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and prompt-library functions), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It also provides decision steps for credentials and payment ('invoke returns a connect link... checkout/top-up link (the user opens it, then you retry)') and suggests request_mcp 'when nothing fits.' This exceeds simple context by providing actionable alternatives.

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 the tool is not read-only, is idempotent, and non-destructive. The description does not add extra context about side effects (e.g., ticket creation, email dispatch), but since annotations cover basic behavior, the description meets a minimum threshold without 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 concise (two sentences) with no fluff. Every sentence contributes essential information—what the tool does and an important input guideline. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 lacks information about expected outputs, success criteria, or error handling. It does not explain what happens after the report is submitted (e.g., confirmation, ticket ID). Given no output schema, this missing context makes the description incomplete for a user needing full expectations.

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 explicitly explains the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'), giving it clear purpose. The 'message' and 'context' parameters are not described, leaving their semantics ambiguous, but partial coverage compensates somewhat.

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 function: reporting bugs, missing features, or providing feedback. It is specific and actionable, distinguishing it from other tools in the toolkit.

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 a single usage hint (include conversation array for reproduction) but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions or contraindications.

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 non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the exact content returned—MCP platform and adapter versions—which the annotations do not cover.

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 states the exact purpose in ten words. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 trivial, zero-parameter, read-only version tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what output to expect (platform and adapter versions) without needing an output schema.

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 input schema is trivially complete. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and there is no parameter information the description needs 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and is 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: use this tool when version information is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling toolkit_info tool or any alternative.

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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by detailing exactly what information the return value includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), going beyond the generic annotations. 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then enumerates the key contents. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 read-only info tool with no parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations. The description fully specifies what the tool returns, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly. No additional context is needed.

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 the schema is empty (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameters; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description focuses entirely on the output, which is appropriate 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 a specific verb ('Returns') and names the resource ('current toolkit state') with detailed contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate', 'connect', and 'report_bug', which are action-oriented.

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 the tool: whenever the agent needs the current toolkit state. It provides clear context for its use, and given the read-only informational nature, no exclusion conditions are necessary. However, it lacks explicit alternative tool references or '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.