Garantia Safra

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive, and non-read-only behavior. The description adds valuable context about the authentication flow: it generates a login link, allows token submission, and clarifies the difference between permanent and session-based authentication. This goes beyond the annotation 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 description is longer than ideal but every sentence contributes useful information: target audience, login process, two authentication methods, and invocation syntax. It is structured as a clear step-by-step guidance, though a more concise format would improve scannability.

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 a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: why to use it, how to use it, what the token means, and the two login paths. No crucial information is missing for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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 a single optional string property 'token' with no description. The description fully explains what token is ('<jwt>' pasted by user) and how it is used (session-only login), completely compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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 IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself by describing the two authentication modes (permanent header config vs session token), which is specific and useful.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool and how to invoke it, including the best practice of configuring a header for a permanent connection and the alternative of pasting a token for session-only login. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools, but the context (IDE agents) is well covered.

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 and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds behavioral detail about the state-dependent response: when all providers are connected it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[], and when credentials are missing it returns connect_url. This is useful context 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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence provides meaningful behavioral details without wasted words. It is 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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description is complete. It explains the return values for both success and failure states, and no output schema is needed given the simplicity. The annotations further cover safety and idempotency, so nothing important is missing.

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 description need not explain any. The schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for anything, so a 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 tool 'Returns connection status and URLs', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than performing authentication, and the credentials-missing behavior adds further specificity.

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 it: when you need to check connection status or obtain connection URLs. It clearly explains the two possible outcomes (all connected vs. missing credentials), giving context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: hosted platform, no credentials, pay-per-query, public access data, and LGPD compliance responsibilities, enriching the agent's understanding of legal and operational boundaries.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential context on hosting, payment, data classification, and legal responsibility. Every sentence adds value 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 tool is a straightforward lookup, but the description does not specify the return format or behavior of the 'completo' parameter. While it covers purpose and access details, the missing output semantics and optional parameter explanation leave gaps for full operational clarity.

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 explains the two required parameters (CPF and NIS) as inputs for the query, but does not clarify the optional 'completo' parameter or provide format details. With 0% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates, leaving one parameter undocumented in 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 clearly states the tool 'Verifica o vínculo de um agricultor com o programa Garantia Safra' using CPF and NIS, specifying both the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve different purposes.

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 clear usage context: no credentials needed, prepaid credit required, and the information is public access. It implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, which are unnecessary given the unrelated 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 discloses key behavioral traits beyond the minimal annotations: invoke runs tools even when not installed (one-off, without bloat), returns connect/checkout links under certain conditions, and requires workspace owner/admin for writes. It also mentions how search/describe flag installation state. This provides the agent with essential operation knowledge.

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, but it is front-loaded with the main purpose and every sentence contributes unique operational detail. Given the tool's complexity (multiple actions, edge cases), the length is justified, though structured bullets or sections would improve readability.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the main actions and their flow, including edge cases like auth requirements and empty wallet retry. It explains what describe returns (full MCP profile) and what get_prompt returns (filled prompt text). Some action-specific outputs are not detailed, but the core usage scenarios are well covered.

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?

Despite the schema having 23 parameters and zero description coverage in the schema itself, the description effectively explains many key parameters (action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, prompt_vars, etc.) through the workflow. However, several parameters such as immediate, conversation, and tier_slug remain unexplained, so it is not a complete parameter reference.

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 the way to run MCPs, covering search, describe, invoke, install, and prompt library functions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly outlining the core flow and scope, making it unambiguous what this tool is for.

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 explicit guidance on when to use invoke vs install ('use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use'), when to use list_tools, and what to do when credentials are missing or wallet is empty (connect link, checkout link). It also notes that writes require workspace owner/admin.

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=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction, providing some behavioral context, but does not disclose response behavior or side effects beyond what annotations 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and a single key instruction. 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?

The description gives a clear purpose and one parameter hint but omits explanation of the 'context' parameter, the string vs array mismatch for conversation, and any response/error expectations. Given no output schema, these gaps remain for an agent.

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 explains the 'conversation' parameter ('recent messages for reproduction') and implies 'message' holds the bug description, but leaves 'context' unexplained. It also calls conversation an 'array' while the schema defines it as a string, causing potential confusion. With 0% schema coverage, partial compensation is provided.

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 'Report' and identifies the resource as 'a bug, missing feature, or send feedback,' clearly distinguishing 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?

It provides clear context that this tool is for bug/feedback submissions, but does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives or name them. The usage is implied by the purpose, but no exclusions are given.

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 the safety profile. The description adds the subject of the query (platform and adapter versions) but does not disclose return format or any side effects. Given the low bar set by strong annotations, a score of 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 a single, concise sentence that fully states the tool's function without any filler. It is front-loaded and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, simple action), the description is completely sufficient. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and no further details are necessary.

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 there is nothing to explain. The schema coverage is trivially 100% and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter information.

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 the specific verb 'show' and identifies the exact resource (MCP platform and adapter versions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplace, which serve entirely different purposes.

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 statement makes the usage context obvious: use when you need version information. There are no close sibling alternatives for version retrieval, so explicit exclusions are unnecessary. It lacks an explicit 'when to use' but provides clear implied 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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing exactly what state is returned, including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts, going beyond the annotation-only information.

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 efficiently enumerates the returned data without any wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Returns') and then lists the specific components.

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, parameterless tool, the description fully captures what the tool does and what to expect. Although there is no output schema, the description lists the return components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), making it self-explanatory.

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 takes no parameters and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, so the baseline for zero parameters is 4. There is no parameter information to 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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly defines the resource as 'current toolkit state', listing exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version, which likely reports version information.

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 tool's purpose obvious, so an agent can infer to use it when needing an overview of the toolkit's configuration and connection status. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, which would have earned a 5.

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