ECRVSP ATPV (Intenção de Venda): Imprimir

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds context about the non-expiring nature of config method vs. session-only login, and that calling with no args returns a link. It doesn't specify outcomes of incorrect tokens but the behavior is well outlined.

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) yet packed with essential instructions, formatted clearly with bold and code for easy parsing. Every sentence contributes value.

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 auth tool with only one optional param and no output schema, the description covers usage modes, prerequisites, and outcomes. It's complete for the tool's complexity and context.

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 schema coverage is 0%, the description explains the token parameter's use (JWT) and the two call variants (with or without args). This provides meaningful semantic guidance despite no formal 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 states the tool's purpose: authenticate for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.) via browser login, with two distinct modes (permanent config header or session token). It distinguishes from siblings by addressing authentication specifically, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 provides two usage paths and conditions: recommended permanent config method vs. session-only paste, and instructs to call with { token } after user pastes or with no args to get link. This is very actionable 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by explaining the two possible return states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and what fields appear in each case, which is beyond the structured data. No contradiction 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), and each sentence adds essential behavioral details. 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 there is no output schema Gang of Four, the description adequately explains return values for both primary states (all connected vs. missing credentials). It doesn't mention error cases or other potential states, but for a status tool with no parameters that may be sufficient. The description covers the typical usage scenarios completely enough.

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 baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on return states rather than parameters. No parameter details needed since there are none, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuous), so no gaps to compensate.

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, distinguishing it from siblings like authenticate or marketplace by focusing on status checking. It specifies the verb 'returns' and the resource (connection status), making the purpose explicit and unique.

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 this tool: to verify connection status and get URLs when credentials are missing or all providers are connected. It provides clear context but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like authenticate, though the purpose is distinct enough. No exclusions are mentioned, but the usage context is evident.

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. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: payment required per query (prepaid credit), authentication is not via platform credentials but via specific credentials, data is not confidential, and the customer is the data controller responsible for LGPD compliance. No contradiction 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 three sentences and front-loaded with the tool's core purpose ('Imprimir, consulta em fonte oficial'). Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, payment/auth conditions, and legal responsibility. It is efficient, though slightly informal in structure, with 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?

With six required parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description must carry a heavier operational burden, but it only provides high-level context. It fails to specify the query result format, parameter semantics, error conditions, or credit-related failure behavior. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool solely from the description.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the six required parameters. 'placa', 'renavam', 'login_cpf', and 'login_senha' are relatively self-explanatory, but 'a3' and 'a3_pin' are cryptic digital-certificate terms, and no formats, constraints, or examples are provided. The description completely fails to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 specific resource (ECRVSP ATPV Intenção de Venda) and the action ('Imprimir, consulta em fonte oficial'), stating it queries official Brazilian sources. Sibling tools are unrelated platform utilities, so there is no real differentiation burden. A small deduction for not making the output/return nature explicit beyond 'imprimir'.

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 context: hosted by the platform, no platform credentials, paid per query with prepaid credit, and LGPD responsibility. This implies use cases where official ATPV data is needed, but it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives or states when not to use the tool, so guidance remains implied rather than 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 (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses behaviors like one-off execution without installing, credential/auth link returns, wallet checkout flows, permission requirements for writes (owner/admin), and the distinction between installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. No contradiction 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 but densely packed with essential information. It is front-loaded with purpose, then structured around the core flow and key distinctions. Every sentence adds value—no filler. Slight deduction for length, but appropriate given the tool's 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?

No output schema exists, so the description partially covers return behaviors (e.g., invoke returns connect/checkout links). It describes the full workflow and all action categories, but lacks details on search result formats or error handling. For a 23-parameter, 14-action tool, it is adequately complete though not exhaustive.

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 23 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description explains the purpose of key parameters implicitly through the action enums and flow (mcp_id, tool_id, arguments), but does not explicitly describe many others like limit, prompt_*, conversation, etc. It adds meaning beyond schema for the core actions but leaves many parameters under-explained.

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 this is the official marketplace tool that catalogs and runs MCPs. It goes beyond a simple verb+resource by explaining the dual role of discovery and execution, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (authenticate, report_bug, etc.) which are specific single-purpose functions.

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?

Extremely explicit guidance on when to use which action: the core flow (search→describe→invoke) is spelled out, and there are direct assertions like 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'. It also names alternatives (list_tools for what's callable now) and prerequisite auth for writes.

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 include readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description does not contradict these. It adds context about including the conversation array for reproduction, which is a behavioral detail beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., response format, whether it creates a ticket) or any side effects, but given the annotations cover safety, 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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence adds a specific usage hint. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit parameter guidance.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions. The description covers the main purpose and hints at the conversation parameter, but does not explain the 'context' parameter or provide details on how to format the conversation array. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but has gaps in parameter guidance.

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 'conversation array' and 'recent messages' which maps to the 'conversation' parameter, and 'message' is implied as the bug description. However, it does not explain the 'context' parameter or provide format details for the conversation array. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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.' It uses a specific verb ('report') and resource ('bug/feature/feedback'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'conversation array' for reproduction, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 this tool (when reporting bugs, missing features, or feedback) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides a hint about including the conversation array for reproduction, which is useful context, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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 description adds specific output details (platform and adapter versions) beyond the annotations, which already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. It does not introduce any contradictory or unexpected side effects.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single clear sentence. It avoids unnecessary words and is well-structured with the subject and action clearly stated.

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, the description conveys that the tool returns the current versions, which is sufficient for a straightforward version check. It could be more detailed about the format, but given the low complexity, it is adequately 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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter explanations, which is appropriate as there is nothing to explain. Baseline for high coverage is 3.

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: showing the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It is specific and unambiguous, leaving no doubt 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 implies usage for checking version information but does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. Given the tool's simplicity, the implicit context is adequate, though a more explicit when-to-use would be slightly better.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds value by specifying what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the structural hints. 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?

Description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's output without fluff. It lists the key elements returned in a clear, scannable format.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. No additional details are necessary for effective usage.

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 no parameters, so the schema is empty. The description compensates by explaining the function's output, which is the only relevant semantic information. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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's purpose: returning the current toolkit state including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb+resource phrasing that distinguishes it from sibling tools 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 makes the usage context obvious—when the agent needs an overview of toolkit components and their states. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the tool's specificity and siblings like show_version, the context is clear enough without further guidance.

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