ECRVSP Veículos: Cadastro BIN RENAVAM

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

Adds context about permanent vs. session authentication, complementing the idempotent annotation. Does not mention side effects, but the described modes are clear.

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?

Concise and well-structured, presenting the two usage options clearly without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Lacks explicit return value description and error handling, but sufficient for an authentication tool. The 'get the link' hint partially covers output.

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?

Explains the optional token parameter's role and how it affects behavior, adding meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

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?

Clearly describes an authentication tool for IDE agents, explaining how to obtain and use tokens. It is distinct from sibling tools like connect or marketplace.

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?

Provides explicit usage modes (permanent config vs. session token) and invocation details, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative authentication methods or 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 details the specific behavior for both scenarios (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), going beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations to describe the exact output structure.

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 the core purpose front-loaded. It provides necessary detail without 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?

The description covers both success and failure (missing credentials) cases, and includes the output fields. It is complete for a read-only status check.

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 correctly omits parameter details as there are none to describe.

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 explicitly states that the tool returns connection status and URLs, and explains the two possible outcomes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace.

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 check connection status) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear enough.

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 significant context beyond annotations: it's a paid service with prepaid credit, requires external login credentials (distinguishing from platform credentials), and clarifies that the data is non-confidential citizen-accessible info. It also addresses LGPD data control responsibility. This exceeds the simple readOnlyHint=true annotation, though it doesn't describe error rates or response specifics.

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 (4 sentences) and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. However, three sentences are dedicated to business/legal caveats (payment, LGPD) rather than technical usage, which is less critical for invocation. It is not bloated, but the content balance is skewed.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter explanations, the description is insufficient for someone to invoke the tool correctly. It covers the legal/commercial context but omits essential details about input requirements and expected response format, leaving a significant usability 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 schema has 8 string parameters with zero description coverage. The description explains none of the parameters, including required fields like a3, a3_pin, login_cpf, and login_senha. Even optional identifiers (placa, chassi, renavam) are not mapped to the query, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid request.

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 states the tool performs a query ('consulta') against official Brazilian sources for vehicle BIN/RENAVAM data. It clearly differentiates from the generic sibling tools (e.g., authenticate, connect). The term 'Cadastro' adds slight ambiguity, and it doesn't explicitly list the returned data, but the core purpose is clear.

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 pricing and legal context (prepaid credit, LGPD) but gives no explicit instructions on when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Sibling tools are generic, so no differentiation is made, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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 meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: invoke works even when an MCP is not installed, runs one-off without toolkit bloat, returns connect/checkout links when credentials or payment are needed, and requires workspace owner/admin for writes. It also disambiguates list_tools as 'what is callable right now.' It does not fully discuss side effects or failure modes, but it is far more transparent than typical tool descriptions.

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 dense paragraph, but almost every sentence contributes unique information about actions, flows, permissions, or the prompt library. It is front-loaded with the tool's identity and core flow. A little structuring (bullets or separation between MCP-marketplace behavior and prompt-library behavior) would improve readability, but the length is justified by the tool's breadth.

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 14-action gateway tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, this description covers the main workflows, permissions, authentication/payment redirects, one-off vs permanent install semantics, and the prompt-library feature set. It does not provide exact return formats or per-action parameter tables, but the operational guidance is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the correct action in most cases.

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 input schema has 23 parameters and 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the key action values (search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, prompt actions) and mentions tool_id, arguments, and prompt variables in context. However, several meaningful parameters such as limit, immediate, conversation, cancel_reason, report_context, and request_details are not given any semantic explanation, leaving gaps for a large schema.

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' and defines its core purpose: discovering, describing, invoking, and installing MCPs. It also covers prompt-library actions, so the resource is well-scoped even though it is multi-purpose. It does not explicitly compare itself with sibling tools, but the detailed action catalog makes the intent clear.

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 strong usage guidance within the tool: it explains the core search → describe → invoke flow, tells the agent to 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', and reserves install for making an MCP 'PERMANENT in the active toolkit'. It lacks explicit guidance about when to choose this marketplace tool over sibling tools like authenticate or report_bug, but the internal precedence rules are helpful.

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=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds that the conversation array should be included for reproduction, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., whether it creates a ticket, sends an email, or logs internally), nor does it mention any rate limits or auth requirements. With annotations covering the basic safety traits, 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a specific instruction about the conversation array. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

The tool is relatively simple with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and one key parameter, but it doesn't explain the 'context' parameter or the expected format of the conversation array. Given the low schema coverage, the description could be more complete, but it's not severely lacking for a simple feedback 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. The description mentions 'conversation array' which maps to the 'conversation' parameter, and 'message' is implied as the main content. However, it doesn't explain the 'context' parameter at all, and it doesn't clarify the format of the conversation array (e.g., JSON string). The description adds some value but leaves gaps for two of three 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.' It uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('bug, missing feature, or send feedback'), and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on user feedback rather than authentication, vehicle consultation, or version info. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' or 'marketplace' that might also handle feedback, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 a bug, missing feature, or providing feedback. It also instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is a usage guideline. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, so it's adequate but not explicit about exclusions.

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, covering safety. The description adds the specific scope (platform and adapter versions) but does not describe output format or any other behavioral details. Given annotations cover the main traits, this is acceptable but not rich.

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. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 version query tool, the description plus annotations fully specify what the tool does and its safety profile. No output schema exists, but for a version check the return value is self-explanatory and doesn't need elaborate documentation.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. No additional parameter information is required.

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 uses specific verb 'Show' and identifies the exact resource: 'current MCP platform and adapter versions'. It is clear and distinct from sibling tools, which focus on authentication, connection, vehicle queries, marketplace, bug reporting, or toolkit info.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives comparison is given. Usage is implied by the name and description: call this tool to check versions. Since sibling 'toolkit_info' might also provide version-like information, some guidance would help, but for a simple version query the intended use is reasonably 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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the content returned (connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and then provides a compact, structured list of the return contents. Every word adds information, with 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?

For a read-only info tool with no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description fully covers the scope of the return value. It tells exactly what data points the agent can expect, which is sufficient for invocation decisions.

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 coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to elaborate. The baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' with a clear resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version 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 clearly implies usage when an agent needs an overview of toolkit state, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It provides clear context without naming when-not-to-use or better-suited sibling tools.

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