Polícia Militar SP: Licenças do Corpo de Bombeiros (CLCB, AVCB E TAACB)

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

The description discloses behavioral nuances beyond the annotations: it explains that a config-based token provides a permanent, non-expiring connection, while a session token is temporary. It implies that calling with no args returns a link, and that passing a token is for direct authentication. It does not contradict the idempotentHint annotation.

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 somewhat verbose with colloquial phrasing ('Best:', 'Or paste it here'), but it packs essential information into a compact paragraph. It is not excessively long and remains readable, though a more formal structure could improve clarity.

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 core usage scenarios (permanent, session, and no-args) and explains the token's role. It does not mention return values, error handling, or side effects beyond the config modification, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, this is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description thoroughly explains the token parameter: it is optional (can be omitted to get a link), its expected format is a JWT, and it is used for session-only authentication. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema type 'string'.

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: authentication for IDE agents. It explains the two primary usage modes (permanent via config, session via token) and explicitly mentions calling with no args to get a link, making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from sibling 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each method (permanent vs. session) and how to invoke the tool, including the no-args call for obtaining a link. This gives clear, actionable instructions without ambiguity.

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. The description adds valuable conditional behavior: what the response looks like when all providers are connected vs when credentials are missing. It does not contradict annotations and fills in realistic detection logic.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase conveys useful information. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 no parameters and no output schema, so the description must cover response meaning well. It explains the two main cases, but it could mention whether partial provider connectivity is a possible outcome and how the URLs are structured.

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 zero parameters, the input schema requires no explanation. The description still clarifies the response semantics, but there is no parameter detail to add.

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 connection status and URLs,' using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like authenticate and show_version by describing the exact response characteristics.

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 implies a status-check use case: call this when needing to know if all providers are connected or when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the behavior is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), it discloses that writes require 'workspace owner/admin,' that invoke runs one-off without installing, and that paid/credential cases return top-up/connect 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 long but each sentence adds value for a 14-action tool; it is front-loaded with purpose and uses a clear action=search → describe → invoke flow. It could be improved with bullet formatting, but is not padded.

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 tool with no output schema and 23 params, the description covers the core flow, one-off invoke behavior, permissions, billing, and prompt library. It omits some enum actions/params like resume, immediate, and tier_slug, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 compensates by explaining the action enum values (search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, prompt actions) and key params like tool_id and arguments. However, many params (resume, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_vars, conversation, etc.) remain 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 opens with 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them,' clearly stating the resource and primary verbs (search, describe, invoke). It distinguishes from siblings by enumerating action categories and the 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?

It gives explicit decision rules: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'; 'list_tools lists what is callable right now'; and 'request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits.' It also explains when invoke returns connect/checkout links and to retry.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint, and idempotence. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a paid query (prepaid credits), requires no platform credentials, and the data is non-confidential but governed by LGPD. This goes beyond annotations. However, it does not mention potential rate limits or failure modes, so not a 5.

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 paragraph with several sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes additional context (payment, hosting, LGPD) that is relevant but not strictly concise. It could be trimmed, but it remains informative 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 has 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema. The description does not explain how parameters are used, what a successful response looks like, or any limitations. Given the complexity, the description is insufficient for an agent to construct a proper query or interpret results.

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%, but the description names the license types (CLCB, AVCB, TAACB) which maps to the first three parameters. However, it does not explain the address/municipality parameters or how they combine, nor does it clarify that these are search filters. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 a consultation tool for Polícia Militar SP fire department licenses (CLCB, AVCB, TAACB) and specifies the official source. The verb 'consulta' and the resource (licenses) are explicit, and it distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools by naming the specific license types.

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 context (hosted by platform, payment via prepaid credits, official source) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage for license verification but lacks clear exclusions or alternative tool references. Sibling tools are generic, so no direct competition, but guidelines could be stronger.

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 convey that the operation is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond the instruction to include conversation context, which is more of a usage guideline. This meets the baseline for annotation-backed tools.

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 includes a terse, actionable 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers the core purpose and some usage context. However, it omits any mention of expected outcomes (e.g., confirmation, errors) or prerequisites like authentication, leaving the overall picture partially incomplete.

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 the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages') but does not clarify 'context' or 'message' beyond the obvious. The required 'message' is implied by 'report a bug', but 'context' remains vague, creating a notable 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 uses a clear verb 'Report' and specifies the resource as 'bug, missing feature, or feedback'. It distinctly separates from sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'show_version' by focusing on user-reported issues.

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 states when to use the tool ('Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback') and gives a concrete instruction ('Include the conversation array with recent messages'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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, covering safety and side-effect behaviors. The description adds minimal context beyond that (e.g., 'current' versions), but doesn't describe return format or potential errors, which is acceptable given the annotations and tool simplicity.

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 with zero wasted words. It is extremely concise and to the point.

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, read-only version-info tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is entirely sufficient. It fully conveys the tool's function without needing additional 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain; the description doesn't need to add param 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), distinguishing it from siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace. It is specific and unambiguous about what it 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 implies usage for checking version information, and no alternative tool exists in the sibling list for this purpose. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, the context is clear enough for a trivial read-only 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, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false. The description adds context on what is returned (state details) and is consistent with the non-destructive read-only nature, but does not add new behavioral traits beyond the annotation-covered safety profile.

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, dense sentence that conveys all essential information without waste. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause adds value.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple state-getter role, the description covers the main purpose adequately. The enumeration of returned items is helpful for the agent to know what to expect. Slight room to mention the output format or whether data is real-time, but not 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?

Tool has 0 parameters, so baseline is 4. No schema coverage concerns. Description correctly implies no parameters are needed, so it adds value by clarifying the tool requires no input.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates precisely what is included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which have 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 states what the tool does but does not explicitly say when to use it or contrast with alternatives. It implies usage for inspecting toolkit state, but no when/not or exclusions are given, making it adequate but not explicit.

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