Microvix

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

Explains the behavior: returns a link if no token is provided, or sets a session token. IdempotentHint is true, and description does not contradict 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?

Description is concise and packed with information, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating permanent vs session).

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?

Does not describe return values beyond mentioning a link when no args; no output schema exists, so more detail on response would be helpful.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'token' parameter is a JWT for session-only login.

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 is for authentication with two methods (permanent config and session token), and distinguishes from sibling tools that are for other 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use each login method (permanent config vs session paste), but does not mention when not to use the tool.

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, indicating no side effects. The description adds value by specifying the return structure under two conditions (connected vs missing credentials), which annotations do not cover. 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and efficiently expands on conditional behavior without redundancy or 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 description covers the two main return states (all connected vs missing credentials) but does not mention other possible states (e.g., partial connection). Since there is no output schema, the description is relied upon, and it adequately covers common 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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing about parameters (none exist), but the baseline for zero parameters is 4, 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, distinguishing between two distinct states (all providers connected vs credentials missing). This differentiates it from siblings like 'authenticate' which handles authentication initiation.

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 the tool is for checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or provide 'when not to use' guidance. Sibling tools like 'authenticate' are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses permission requirements (workspace owner/admin for writes), the one-off invoke behavior even when MCP is not installed, and the return of connect/checkout links. 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 verbose (multiple sentences, dense with information) but front-loaded with the core purpose. While every sentence adds value, the length could be reduced by grouping common behaviors. Still, it is structured logically.

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, but the description only briefly mentions return behaviors for invoke (connect/checkout links) and lacks details on return format for search, describe, list_tools, etc. With 13 parameters and complex actions, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand all use 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?

With 13 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain individual parameters. It mentions action values and the arguments parameter as JSON, but does not provide semantic detail for most parameters (e.g., limit, query, mcp_id, tool_id, etc.). Inadequate compensation for the schema gap.

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 it's the official mcp.ai marketplace for discovering and running MCPs/tools. It provides specific verbs (search, describe, invoke) and distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning itself as the primary tool for capability discovery, before any external registry.

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 offers explicit guidance on when to use each action (search first, then describe, then invoke or install), when to prefer invoke over install, and how to handle auth/payment via connect/checkout links. It also contrasts with sibling tools like install and list_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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the safety profile, such as pagination behavior, response size limits, or authentication requirements. For a read-only query tool, more details on what happens with no filters or incomplete input would be beneficial.

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 with no redundant information. It front-loads the entity name and immediately specifies filter capabilities. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is efficient.

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 absence of an output schema, the description fails to mention the return format, pagination, and default behavior (e.g., returns all records if no filters applied). The tool has 5 optional parameters but no guidance on combinations. The description does not fully equip an agent to use the tool effectively in all scenarios.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It lists four of five parameters (data_inicial, data_fim, doc_cliente, cnpj_emp) as filter criteria, adding meaning to their role. However, it omits the 'account' parameter and does not explain parameter formats, optionality, or acceptable values. The description adds some value but is not comprehensive.

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 'Cadastro de clientes e fornecedores (LinxClientesFornec)', clearly identifying the resource as customer and supplier records. It provides filter fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like microvix_produtos or microvix_pedidos_venda. However, the verb is implied rather than explicit (e.g., 'List' or 'Query').

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 indicates filtering by date, document, and CNPJ, giving context for when to use this tool (need filtered customer/supplier data). However, it does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference alternative tools or provide prerequisites. The sibling tools list shows no similar customer/supplier tool, so no explicit contrast is provided.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the tool lists CNPJs and is meant as a preliminary discovery step, consistent with annotations. No 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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. First states purpose, second provides usage hint. No unnecessary words, highly efficient.

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 no output schema and two parameters, the description covers the tool's purpose and usage pattern but lacks parameter details. It implies output is a list of CNPJs but does not specify structure. Adequate but could be improved.

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%, yet the description does not explain the meaning or expected values of 'grupo' and 'account'. It only gives a general usage hint, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 it lists CNPJs of stores from a group (LinxGrupoLojas), providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like microvix_lojas by focusing on group-level query.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use pra descobrir os cnpj_emp antes de iterar.' It indicates when to use (before iterating) but does not specify when not to use or explicitly name alternatives.

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 confirm read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds value by specifying scope ('connected to this install') and return fields (id, label), which is not apparent from annotations alone.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence conveying essence without extraneous words. Could be slightly more structured but remains efficient.

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?

Provides basic information: lists portals with id and label for this install. Missing parameter details for 'account' (e.g., filtering) and any notes on pagination or limits. Adequate for a simple list but incomplete for full agent understanding.

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 1 parameter 'account' with 0% description coverage. Description does not explain its purpose, effect on results, or possible values. No additional semantics 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?

Description clearly states action (list) and resource (Microvix portals connected to this install), including returned fields (id, label). While it distinguishes from many sibling tools by resource type, it does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like microvix_lojas.

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 guidance on when or why to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., microvix_lojas for stores, microvix_clientes_fornec for customers). No prerequisites or context for filtering by the optional 'account' parameter.

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 destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. Description adds the specific data fields returned (CNPJ, address, tax regime), but no further behavioral traits like pagination or response format.

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?

Single sentence with no superfluous information. Efficiently conveys the tool's data content.

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, so description lists key fields (CNPJ, address, tax regime). However, it doesn't clarify whether the tool returns a list or single object, or the behavior when no parameters are provided. Adequate for a simple data retrieval tool with clear annotations.

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% (no parameter descriptions). The description does not explain how to use the optional 'account' and 'cnpj_emp' parameters. It implies filtering by account or CNPJ, but provides no details, so fails to 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?

Description states it provides data about stores/companies (CNPJ, address, tax regime). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like microvix_clientes_fornec and microvix_produtos, but doesn't explicitly state the action (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'list').

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?

Implied usage: use this for store/company data. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives. Sibling tools cover other entities, so the context is clear but not 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety info. It adds context about the content (taxes, payment methods) and labels it as foundational ('base do faturamento'), but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination or performance.

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 concise sentences; front-loaded with purpose and followed by filtering instructions. No extraneous content, though a slightly more structured format could 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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain return format or list behavior. It is adequate for a simple read operation with annotations covering safety, but lacks details on output structure.

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 three of the four parameters (data_inicial, data_fim, cnpj_emp) but omits 'account'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but the omission leaves a gap.

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 'Movimento de vendas/fiscal' and specifies the data included (transações, chave da NF, impostos, formas de pagamento). Distinguishes from siblings like microvix_pedidos_venda (sales orders) by framing it as the base of billing.

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?

States filtering instructions (por data_inicial/fim e cnpj_emp), providing context on how to query. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., microvix_pedidos_venda) or when not to use it.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the filtering behavior ('Filtre por...') but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, or limits. The bar is lower due to annotations, but the description contributes minimal context.

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, short sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's focus and key filters. It is front-loaded with the resource name, making it easy to scan. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (read-only, no output schema), the description lacks information about what the tool returns (e.g., fields of sales orders) and any usage limits or prerequisites. It feels incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke without extra 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explicitly names three of the five parameters (data_inicial, data_fim, doc_cliente, cnpj_emp), providing some semantics. However, the 'account' parameter is omitted, and no format details (e.g., date format) are given, leaving gaps.

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 it is about sales orders (Pedidos de venda) and mentions filtering parameters. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like microvix_movimento or microvix_produtos, which also deal with related data.

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 by stating filter options (date, client document, company CNPJ), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and siblings.

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=true and destructiveHint=false, so behavior is safe. The description adds context about available fields and filter parameters (dt_update_inicio/fim, cnpj_emp), which helps understand what data is returned. No contradictions 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 long, front-loading important field and filter information. It is concise with minimal wasted words, though the first sentence lacks a verb and could be more precise.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no description of return format or limits, the description is incomplete. It does not cover pagination, defaults, or the nature of the result (list vs. single item), making it insufficient for confident agent 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description carries full burden. It only explains two parameters (dt_update_inicio/fim and cnpj_emp) and lists result fields not in schema (nome, NCM, etc.). Parameters like account, referencia, cod_produto are undocumented, leaving significant gaps.

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 is a noun phrase 'Cadastro de produtos' without an explicit verb indicating the action (list/get/search). It lists fields and filters but does not specify whether it retrieves, creates, or updates. This lack of action verb reduces clarity for an AI agent.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like microvix_produtos_detalhes or microvix_produtos_inventario. It mentions filters but does not explain the use case or prerequisites.

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, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds specific fields returned but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or error handling. It provides moderate added context 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key filters without 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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no detailed return format, the description lacks completeness. It omits parameter explanations for half the parameters, no pagination, ordering, or error handling info. Annotations cover safety but not operational details.

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 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only explains data_mov_ini, data_mov_fim, and cnpj_emp, leaving other parameters (account, referencia, cod_produto) undocumented. This is insufficient to 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 it returns product details (barcode, quantity, prices, average cost) filtered by date and CNPJ, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like microvix_produtos and microvix_produtos_inventario.

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 mentions filters but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like microvix_produtos or microvix_produtos_inventario. Usage context is implied but not 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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it queries inventory by barcode and requires certain parameters, but does not disclose error handling, response format, or effects of missing parameters.

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 at two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. It could be more structured but is efficient 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?

The tool has three parameters with no descriptions in the schema and no output schema. The description omits the 'account' parameter entirely and does not explain return values or error cases. It lacks completeness for an AI agent to use reliably.

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 two parameters (data_inventario and cnpj_emp) but not the third (account). It tells the user to provide them but does not explain their formats or roles. This adds some meaning but is incomplete.

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 'Inventário/saldo de estoque por código de barras' indicating it retrieves inventory balances by barcode. It specifies the entity name and required parameters. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like microvix_produtos or microvix_produtos_detalhes.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., microvix_produtos for general product info). There is no mention of prerequisites or context for 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?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no new behavioral traits beyond filter availability; it does not mention pagination, limits, or response format.

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, front-loading the purpose and filter options. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more 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?

No output schema, and the description lacks information on pagination, max results, or response structure. The undocumented 'account' parameter reduces completeness for a 5-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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names three of five parameters (data_upd_inicial/fim, cod_vendedor, cnpj_emp), providing partial meaning. The 'account' parameter is undocumented.

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 it's for querying sellers (Cadastro de vendedores) with filter options. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on 'vendedores' specifically, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar microvix_* 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 usage via filters ('Filtre por...'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus others, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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 indicates the tool is for reporting, which implies a write operation. Annotations confirm destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not contradict. However, it does not elaborate on what happens after reporting, such as storage or logging. It adds minimal behavioral 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 long, directly stating the purpose and a key usage instruction. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 tool's simplicity (reporting feedback) and the presence of annotations, the description provides a basic but sufficient overview. However, it lacks clarity on parameter formats and does not mention the idempotentHint behavior, which could be helpful. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully 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 schema has 0% description coverage. The description mentions the 'conversation array' but the schema declares it as a string (default '[]'), which is confusing. The 'context' parameter is not explained at all. The description fails to add meaningful semantics for most 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: reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback. It also includes guidance to include the conversation array for reproduction. The purpose is distinct from all sibling tools, which are operational or data-related.

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 advises including the conversation array, which is a usage guideline. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not-to-use 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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it returns 'MCP platform and adapter versions', which is minor additional context. Behavioral transparency is adequate but not enhanced significantly 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?

Single sentence, directly states purpose with no extraneous words. Perfectly concise and 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?

For a simple version information tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what information the tool provides, and no additional context is necessary given the tool's simplicity.

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?

No parameters defined. The empty input schema means no parameter descriptions are needed. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so baseline 4 for zero 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?

Description clearly states the tool shows current MCP platform and adapter versions, with a specific verb 'Show' and resource identifier. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like microvix_* or 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, its purpose is straightforward (version info), so the need for guidance is minimal. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use notes.

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, non-destructive behavior. The description adds specific context about the returned information (installed MCPs, connection status, catalog counts) without contradicting 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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's functionality without extraneous information.

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?

While the description explains the return value, it lacks details about the data format or structure. However, given the tool's simplicity and the presence of no output schema, it is mostly 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?

No parameters exist, so the description is not required to explain parameter details. It focuses on the output, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 what the tool does: returns current toolkit state including installed MCPs, connection status, and catalog tool counts. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like show_version or 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?

The description implies usage for retrieving state information but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.

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