Procuradoria Geral do Estado SP: Emissão de GARE de Liquidação

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

Annotations already model idempotency and non-read-only behavior; the description adds helpful context about permanent/non-expiring auth versus session-only login and the where to place the token. It does not fully explain all potential side effects or failure paths, but what it adds is useful and does not contradict 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 information-dense and front-loaded with the product purpose and login workflow. It keeps the details compact and has no filler, though the ordering of manual config advice versus tool-call instructions could be slightly tighter.

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 one-optional-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the key scenario: how to get the auth link and how to submit a token for a session. It could be more complete by saying what the response looks like after token-based authentication and how errors are reported, but the essentials are present.

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 provides zero description for the token parameter, so the description compensates by identifying token as an optional JWT/access token and showing the exact call shape for using it. It also clarifies the no-argument meaning, which supplies the parameter semantics the raw schema lacks.

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 presents authenticate as the entry point for IDE-agent login, covering both obtaining an auth link and using a pasted JWT. It loses the fifth point because it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling connect tool or states 'this authenticates the current session/agent' in a direct verb+resource form.

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 usage paths: call with no arguments to get the link, call with { token: '<jwt>' } for session-only login, and permanently configure Authorization via the server config. It does not fully enumerate when not to use this tool or direct the agent to alternatives, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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?

Description adds conditional return scenarios beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, disclosing behavior for all providers connected and missing credentials.

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, no 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?

Covers return behavior with two scenarios, but lacks explicit error handling or further explanation of output fields; however, given simplicity, it is adequate.

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 to describe; schema coverage is complete, so 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?

Clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 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?

Provides conditional behavior for different states, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools; however, the conditions imply usage when checking connection.

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 only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: writes require workspace owner/admin, invoke runs one-off without installing or bloating the toolkit, invoke returns connect/checkout links when credentials or payment are needed, and install makes an MCP permanent. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but dense and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information about actions, auth, or the prompt library. It could be better structured with bullets or separate sections given the breadth of actions, but it avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized 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 no output schema and 23 parameters, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the core flow, install-vs-invoke semantics, auth requirements, billing actions, and the prompt library. It still leaves some gaps, such as the exact meaning of the 'resume' action, the 'immediate' parameter, and specific return shapes for search/list_tools, but it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 23 parameters, the description carries a heavy burden. It compensates well by explaining the action enum values and the core flow (search→describe→invoke), plus the prompt_* actions and their purpose. However, many parameters (limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, prompt_targets, etc.) are not explicitly mapped, though their names are reasonably self-explanatory and the action-level narrative helps.

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 opens with a specific, verb-driven definition: 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and report_bug by positioning it as the catalog/execution hub, and it enumerates the full action surface (search, describe, invoke, install, prompt library).

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 when-to-use guidance: prefer invoke for single/occasional use, use install only to make an MCP permanent, use list_tools for what is callable right now, use request_mcp when nothing fits, and use search_prompts/get_prompt/publish_prompt for prompt text. It also explains the core search→describe→invoke flow and when connect/checkout links will appear, so the agent knows how to route between 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?

The description adds significant transparency beyond the annotations by stating that the service requires prepaid credit for each consultation, that it accesses non-confidential official data, and that the client is responsible for data compliance under LGPD. This clarifies cost, data sensitivity, and legal responsibilities, which are not covered by the readOnly/idempotent 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 reasonably concise but contains some redundancy, repeating phrases like 'consulta em fonte oficial' and 'informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais'. It is front-loaded with the main purpose but could be streamlined without losing meaning.

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 several important aspects (payment, data source, LGPD) but omits critical context such as what the tool actually returns, how the parameters are used, and any limitations or prerequisites. Given the lack of output schema and parameter descriptions, the description does not provide enough to fully understand the tool's operation.

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 lists three parameters (cda, cpf, renavam) with no descriptions. The tool description does not mention any of these parameters nor explain their purpose or format. With 0% schema coverage and no description compensation, the parameter semantics are completely unaddressed.

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 indicates that this tool is for consulting GARE (tax payment guide) emission/liquidation information from an official source (Brazilian state attorney general's office). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) by indicating it's a data consultation service. However, the exact nature of the consultation (e.g., checking status, retrieving details) could be more explicit, so it loses a point.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any alternative tools or specific scenarios where this consultation is appropriate. The description only describes what the service does, not when it should be invoked.

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 non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. The description adds useful context that recent messages should be included for reproduction. However, it does not explain what happens after submission, whether confirmation is returned, or any side effects 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 two sentences and front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence provides useful information, and there is no wasted wording or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 three scalar parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the core action. However, it does not explain expected behavior after reporting, what the response might look like, or the meaning of the context parameter. This is adequate but not fully complete for an agent invoking an unfamiliar 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, but it only enriches the conversation parameter by calling it an array of recent messages for reproduction. The required message parameter and the context parameter receive no semantic explanation. This leaves significant meaning uncovered 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 reports bugs, missing features, or feedback, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or show_version. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool by defining its three related use cases: bug report, missing feature, and feedback. It also instructs the agent to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is helpful for correct invocation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage is 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds context by specifying the exact content (platform and adapter versions), which is useful beyond annotations. No contradictions, so a 4 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 with no filler or repetition. Every word is meaningful, making it perfectly sized 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, simple read-only behavior), the description fully covers its purpose. The annotations provide safety information, so the description is complete for this straightforward informational 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly omits any parameter details since none exist. No additional semantic value is needed for 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 purpose: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It uses a specific verb (show) and resource (platform and adapter versions), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or toolkit_info which do not directly address version display.

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 it is used to check versions but does not explicitly state when to use it or mention any alternatives. Sibling tools like toolkit_info might provide related info, but no guidance is given on when to choose this tool over others. The context is clear enough though, so it scores a 3.

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 read-only nature, and annotations reinforce this with readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. No side effects are implied or expected, making it fully transparent.

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, one sentence, and directly conveys the tool's purpose and output without 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?

The description provides a good summary of the returned content but does not specify the exact structure or format (e.g., whether it returns a list, object, etc.). Given the simple read-only nature and lack of output schema, this is slightly vague but generally adequate.

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 elaborate on them. The absence of parameters is consistent with the purpose of retrieving global state.

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 toolkit state, listing specific items (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools count). It distinguishes from sibling tools like connect or authenticate, which handle different actions.

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?

While the description implies use for retrieving general toolkit information, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., show_version for version info, authenticate for auth). For a simple read-only info tool, the context is clear, but explicit guidance would be more helpful.

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