DETRAN TO: Veículo

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

The description explains behavioral nuances beyond annotations: calling with no args returns a login link, passing a token completes authentication, and explains the difference between permanent (config header) and session-only (JWT) connections. It complements the idempotentHint (calling again doesn't harm) and readOnlyHint=false (it changes auth state) 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 a single run-on sentence but packs substantial information with clear guidance ('Best: add it...' and 'Or paste it here'). It is slightly longer than necessary but every clause contributes actionable detail. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 authentication flow's complexity (browser, token, config, session), the description covers all essential aspects: how to obtain the token, two integration methods, and the API call forms (with/without token). No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains expected behavior and return outcomes (link vs success). Comprehensive and self-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 has only one optional 'token' parameter with zero description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that token is a JWT, that it can be passed for session login, and that omitting it returns the auth link. It also clarifies the token's format and usage, exceeding what the schema alone would convey.

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: authenticating via browser login and token exchange. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by focusing specifically on authentication flow. The verb 'authenticate' plus the context of 'log in' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs when and how to use the tool: 'log in in the browser, copy the access token' and offers two modes (permanent config vs session token). It clearly states when to call with no args vs with a token, and gives best-practice advice for configuring the server. This is exemplary usage 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is safe. The description adds behavioral details about the two states (authenticated vs. missing credentials) and mentions per-install URLs, which is useful.

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, no fluff, clearly structured with conditions. Perfectly concise.

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 zero parameters and strong annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotent, non-destructive), the description fully covers what the tool does and what the caller should expect. No output schema but the behavior is described.

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)Skip. Schema covers 100% of parameters (none), so no additional explanation needed. The description focuses on output, which is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, and explains two possible states (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). The scope is precise: it reports status, not actions.

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?

Description implies usage contexts: when credentials are present vs. missing alerting the user with connect_url. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to call this vs. sibling tools like authenticate, so slight room for improvement.

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 signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds relevant context beyond that: prepaid cost-per-query, no secret data, LGPD responsibility, and the client as data controller. These extra disclosures make the tool's operational and legal behavior transparent.

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 relatively concise, front-loads the core purpose, and each sentence covers a distinct point: data source, platform/payment model, confidentiality, and legal responsibility. There is minor redundancy around 'official source,' but it is not bloated.

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 parameters and safe read-only annotations, this description provides enough operational and legal context for tool selection. It is missing explicit information about output structure or exactly which vehicle fields are returned, but the return does not have an output schema and the gap is mostly for the parameter semantics.

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 no descriptions for the four parameters, and the description does not compensate for the 0% coverage. It does not explain the meaning, format, or required combination of placa, renavam, cpf, or cnpj beyond what the property names themselves already imply.

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 performs vehicle consultations against official DETRAN TO sources ('Veículo, consulta em fonte oficial'). It identifies both the action and the resource, and the sibling tools are unrelated enough that the intended purpose is not ambiguous.

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 practical usage context: this is a paid, prepaid-credit lookup against official Brazilian sources, requires no platform credentials, and returns information that is public/non-confidential. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use cases or alternative tools, but the intended scenario is clear.

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 a bare annotation set (readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: true), the description carries the full burden and delivers richly: one-off execution semantics, credential connect links, empty-wallet checkout links with retry workflow, owner/admin write requirements, and a shareable no-login prompt link. There is no contradiction with annotations — readOnlyHint: false is consistent with the described write operations.

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?

Information-dense with no fluff, but it is one massive wall-of-text paragraph with a rambling first sentence, unexpected language switch ('pontualmente'), and buried lead — the non-install invoke behavior only surfaces mid-paragraph. Every sentence earns its place, but it is not front-loaded or scannable.

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 extremely complex tool (14 actions, 23 params, no output schema), the description covers the two domains, auth edge cases, payment flows, and permission requirements thoroughly. It does not describe response shapes per action despite the absence of an output schema, and some actions like resume are never mentioned, which keeps it just shy of a 5.

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% with 23 params, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains the action enum and the mock tool_id / params flow, and the prompt_* family via search_prompts/get_prompt/publish_prompt. However, many params (arguments, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, limit, message) are never named or constrained, leaving the agent guessing on format and usage.

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 has a specific verb+resource+scope: 'official mcp.ai marketplace' that catalogs AND runs MCPs, with an explicit core flow (search→describe→invoke). It distinguishes its key capability (invoke works without install) and carves out the prompt library as a second domain. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like report_bug and authenticate.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', and directs 'report_bug' vs 'request_mcp' vs the prompt library paths. However, it never contrasts against actual sibling tools like connect or authenticate, which are plausible confusers for the invoke/credential flow.

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 idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context about including conversation for reproduction, which is useful for understanding expected input. It does not contradict annotations and provides minor behavioral context beyond 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 purpose and followed by a specific requirement. There is no wasted wording, and it is easy to scan. It 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no output schema, simple input), the description covers the main purpose but fails to explain two of three parameters. The lack of explanation for 'context' is a notable gap, especially since schema coverage is 0%. The description is incomplete for a 3-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array') but provides no explanation for 'message' or 'context'. The message is implied as the feedback text but not explicitly defined, and 'context' is entirely unexplained. This is insufficient for unclear 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' The verb 'report' is specific and the resource (bug/feedback) is explicit. It distinguishes itself from unrelated sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) by focusing on reporting issues.

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 clear context for use: reporting bugs or feedback, and instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but given the unrelated siblings, this is likely sufficient. The guidance to include conversation is actionable and relevant.

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 idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific semantic that it returns both MCP platform and adapter versions, which is useful context beyond the annotations. While not extensive, it appropriately details what information is retrieved.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Show', and no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it extremely concise and well-structured.

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 parameterless version-checking tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the user exactly what versions are reported. There is no missing information that would impair an agent's ability to invoke it 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered (100%). The description does not need to add parameter details; the baseline of 4 for no parameters applies 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 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions' uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'connect'. There is no ambiguity about what the tool 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 implicitly suggests it is used to check version information, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations when not to use it. For a simple info tool, the usage context is implied rather than stated.

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 safety is covered. The description adds that it returns state but does not disclose any behavioral nuances like caching, latency, or authentication. With annotations, this is adequate but not enriched.

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, complete sentence that immediately states the purpose and enumerates the returned data. No unnecessary words 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?

For a simple read-only info tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully captures what the tool returns. It covers all relevant aspects of the tool's behavior.

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 the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and specifies the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, 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 purpose implies when to use it (whenever the current toolkit state is needed), but there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives. Sibling tools are clearly different, so context is clear, but no exclusions are stated.

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