ECRVSP Documentos: Alteração de Dados Cadastrais

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

It discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: token-based login is session-only, the config header approach is permanent/non-expiring, and calling without args returns a link. This is useful contextual information beyond the idempotent and readOnly hints.

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 content is relevant and mostly front-loaded, but the entire guidance is compressed into one long run-on sentence with parenthetical asides. Bullet-point or short-phase structure would be easier to parse, though no sentence is wasted.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the necessary flow: log in browser flow, copy token, choose permanent config or session login or no-args link. It does not explain response shape or possible errors, but for this simple tool the coverage is largely 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 JSON schema only lists a `token` string with no description, so the tool description carries the burden. The description explains that `token` is a JWT pasted after the user logs into the browser and that it is optional. It could be slightly more explicit about format or lifecycle, but it adds enough meaning.

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 makes clear the tool is for browser-based authentication flow: it either returns a login link when called with no arguments or accepts a pasted JWT token for session login. It does not use a crisp verb-object statement and is written as usage instructions, but the 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 explicit setup alternatives and invocation guidance: add the token to server config for permanent access, paste the token as a session-only login, or call without arguments to get the login link. This directly tells the agent when to choose each style of use.

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 transparency by explaining the two possible response cases (authenticated:true and pending[], or connect_url). This goes beyond the basic readOnly/idempotent annotations, though it does not mention potential errors or side effects (which are none given 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 concise, using only two sentences to convey the core behavior and conditional outcomes. It is well-structured and free of 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the main return fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url, per-install URLs). It is clear enough for a user to understand the expected output, though it does not specify the exact data types or format.

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 coverage is 100%. The description correctly omits any parameter explanation, but it does not add any additional semantic value beyond confirming that no input is required. The baseline of 3 applies.

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: it returns connection status and URLs. It provides specific details about the content of the response in different scenarios, making 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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'. It focuses on output behavior rather than usage context, providing only implied guidance that it is for checking connection status.

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 read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that payment is required and that no platform credentials are used, but it does not clarify side effects, data handling, or response behavior. It provides minimal additional transparency beyond 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 verbose run-on sentence filled with repetitive legal jargon (e.g., 'fonte oficial', 'não é dado sigiloso', 'LGPD'). It is not concise and obscures the actual purpose, making it difficult to parse quickly.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description does not provide a clear functional overview, expected inputs, or output format. It is entirely inadequate for an agent to understand how to invoke and process results 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?

All 12 parameters are strings with no descriptions. The schema has 0% coverage. The description does not explain any parameter's meaning, which is critical for a tool with such a large parameter set.

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 mentions 'consulta em fonte oficial' (query in official source) and 'Alteração de Dados Cadastrais' (change of registration data), but it is ambiguous whether the tool queries changes or performs them. The tool name suggests 'consultar' (query), but the description mixes compliance language without clearly stating the function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor any context for when it is appropriate. The description is purely a legal disclaimer about payment and LGPD, not usage instructions.

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 are minimal (openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), but the description discloses substantial behavioral context: writes require workspace owner/admin, invoke runs non-installed MCPs one-off, invoke returns connect/checkout links when auth/payment is needed, and search/describe flag 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 a dense single paragraph that front-loads purpose, examples, and the core flow before diving into behavioral caveats and the prompt library. Every sentence earns its place, but the lack of bullet points or section breaks makes it harder to scan for a 23-parameter multi-action tool.

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 complexity (23 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, action flow, auth/billing behaviors, permissions, and prompt library returns. It lacks detailed return formats for some actions (e.g., search results, list_tools, get_prompt), but it provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for 23 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain the central 'action' enum and the flow (search→describe→invoke, prompt library actions), giving meaning to tool_id, arguments, and prompt_vars indirectly. However, it leaves many parameters (limit, message, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, etc.) unexplained, so compensation is only partial.

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 official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool and the way to run them. It enumerates distinct actions (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and the core flow, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, 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?

The description gives explicit decision guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' versus 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and explains when to use report_bug, request_mcp, list_tools, and the prompt library actions. It even covers what to do when credentials or wallet funds are missing (connect/checkout links, then retry).

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 provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the valuable context of including the conversation array for reproduction, which is not present in annotations. It does not contradict annotations, and the addition of the conversation requirement compensates for the minimal annotation coverage, though it could describe the side effects (e.g., ticket creation) more explicitly.

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 immediately states the purpose and provides the key usage hint. No wasted words; it is perfectly front-loaded.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema and the existence of three parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the 'message' and 'context' fields, nor does it clarify the expected input format for 'conversation' (string vs. array). With no output schema either, the agent is left with incomplete guidance for a task that could benefit from more detail about what happens after reporting.

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 explain parameters. It only mentions 'conversation array' but the schema defines it as a string (default '[]'), creating a mismatch. It does not explain 'message' or 'context' at all, leaving the agent to guess their meaning. This is insufficient for a tool with 3 parameters and no parameter 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 and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which serve entirely different 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?

The description includes a clear usage instruction: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' This gives context on how to invoke the tool effectively. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough to infer usage.

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 accurately reflects the readOnly and idempotent nature implied by annotations, but adds no extra context beyond that; it's consistent with 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 a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words, achieving high conciseness.

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 version query, the description provides sufficient context; no output schema is defined, but the purpose is clear and typical for such a 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?

Since there are no parameters, schema coverage is trivially 100%, but the description adds nothing about parameters because none exist, aligning with the baseline score.

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: to show current MCP platform and adapter versions, which is specific and distinguishes it from other 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 implies when to use the tool (to retrieve version info) and is self-explanatory, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, which are not obvious for this simple query.

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 does not contradict the annotations: readOnlyHint is true and it is idempotent, which matches a read-only status check. The description also adds that it returns the connection status of the MCPs and accounts, which is behavioral context beyond the annotation. It also reveals that it returns how many catalog tools each MCP exposes, which is valuable information. The annotation already says it is read-only, but the description adds what exactly is returned. It does not include any mention of authentication or side effects, but it is not needed for a read-only tool. It also does not mention any latency, but that is not critical.

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 is concise and front-loaded. It clearly states what the tool returns and lists the key pieces of information, without any redundancy. It is efficient and contains no unnecessary 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?

The tool is a simple read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description covers the return values well. It does not mention the exact format of the output, but it is not necessary for a simple status check. There is no output schema to compare, but the description lists all the relevant information it returns. It is complete for the intended use.

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 description does not need to explain any parameters. The schema has no properties, and the description fully explains what the tool does. Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to add any parameter-specific context. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description fully describes the tool's purpose and output, so a score of 4 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?

The description clearly states the returned state of the toolkit components and what information the tool returns. This description is an inventory of the multiple MCPs. The overall returned description of what the integrated MCPs, so the information provided by the purpose is a clear and detailed. The description of the returned by the description of the toolkit's structure is distinct from other sibling tools like the other tools. Despite the lack of a title, the description is clear and provides a strong purpose. The description is clear and differentiates from the sibling's tool it is a read-only status tool. The description of the toolkit's structure is clear and detailed for the purpose of what it returns. However, it is not just a simple state tool due to the information provided, and the description has a purpose that is specific with multiple pieces of data. The purpose is clear, and the description gives the exact resource and the output.

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 that it can be used to retrieve information about the toolkit's overall state like the connection status of MCPs and accounts, but it does not provide any explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It could be a good tool to use to understand the environment at the start or to diagnose connection issues. It is also not clear if it should be used before or after each call, but it is implied. The description does not name an alternative tool, but the sibling list shows other tools that are not relevant to the overall state. There is some guidance in the list of return values but not explicit.

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