Prefeitura BA Camaçari: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context about persistent vs. session-only login and explains the no-args behavior of returning a link. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 actionable setup instructions. It is slightly dense but every sentence contributes useful guidance, with no filler or 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?

For a one-optional-parameter auth tool with no output schema, this description covers the essential flow: browser login, token copying, permanent vs. session-only options, and the two invocation patterns. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most contexts.

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 only defines a token string with no description and 0% coverage. The description compensates by explaining that token is a JWT pasted by the user, and that omitting it triggers a browser login link flow. This adds practical meaning beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: authenticating IDE agents by logging in via browser and providing an access token. It gives explicit actions ('log in', 'copy the access token') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect or marketplace by focusing on token-based authentication.

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: permanent configuration via Authorization header vs. session-only login by passing a token or calling with no args to get the link. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternatives, but the scenarios are well-defined for this auth flow.

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 mark this as read-only and idempotent. The description goes further by disclosing conditional output: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url when credentials missing. This behavior is not inferable 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundancy. The second sentence efficiently packs two conditional cases.

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, the description covers the two most likely statuses. It could elaborate on partial connection states but is adequate for 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema offers nothing to document. The description correctly focuses on output behavior, exceeding the baseline for zero-param tools.

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 and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'authenticate' which likely initiates authentication, while 'connect' checks status.

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 but never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives. It describes output scenarios but doesn't say 'use this to verify connectivity' or mention that 'authenticate' is for initiating the 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?

The annotations are sparse (only readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive hints), so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds major operational context: invoke runs tools one-off without installing, missing credentials return a connect link, empty wallet returns checkout, writes require workspace owner/admin, and prompt links open without login. These details meaningfully go beyond the structured annotations, and no contradiction is present.

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 the tool is a multi-action dispatcher with 14 actions, so the length is largely justified. It is front-loaded with the core flow, then covers install-vs-invoke, billing/auth behavior, and the prompt library. It is dense rather than repetitive; minor run-on structure costs it a perfect score.

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 high complexity (14 actions, 23 parameters, no output schema), the description is unusually complete: it explains the full search → describe → invoke flow, auth/billing side effects, install semantics, permissions, and prompt publishing. The main gaps are exact return shapes, error/retry workflows beyond the connect/checkout links, and exhaustive parameter mapping, but the description still provides enough context for safe invocation.

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% across 23 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain the core action flow and clarifies tool_id, arguments, prompt_vars, and prompt_slug indirectly, but many parameters are left undocumented: limit, query, immediate, conversation, prompt_targets, prompt_tool, request_details, cancel_reason, and cancel_comment. The description is helpful but only partially compensates for the complete lack of schema-level parameter 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 identifies the marketplace as the official mcp.ai catalog and execution layer, with an explicit core flow: search discovers MCPs, describe returns profiles, invoke runs tools, install makes them permanent. This goes well beyond a vague verb+resource statement and effectively differentiates the marketplace's role from sibling tools like report_bug or toolkit_info.

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

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

The description gives direct usage guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT.' It also maps each action to its purpose: search/describe, invoke, install, list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt library actions. This is explicit when-to-use guidance with clear 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 already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds valuable context about payment (prepaid credit), non-confidential data, and LGPD compliance, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 four sentences, front-loading the purpose but containing some redundancy (e.g., 'consulta em fonte oficial' and 'consulta informação de fontes oficiais'). It could be more concise without losing essential info.

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 explains the purpose, payment, and legal context, but it omits details about the parameters (what login/senha are for) and the output format. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns, which it does not.

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, and the description does not explain what 'login' and 'senha' represent or how they relate to the query. Since there are required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate for this 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 the tool purpose with specific verb 'consulta' and resource 'Certidão Negativa de Débitos' for the municipality of Camaçari, distinguishing it from generic sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace.

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

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

The description gives clear context: it queries official sources, uses prepaid credit, and doesn't require platform credentials. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds the detail about including conversation for reproduction, which provides some behavioral context, but it doesn't disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., response). With annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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, tightly written sentence that conveys purpose and a key usage instruction without any fluff. 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?

For a simple feedback tool with no output schema and straightforward parameters, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the action and the key input requirement (conversation). It could mention the expected outcome, but given the simplicity, it suffices.

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 carries the burden. It explains the 'conversation' parameter's purpose (for reproduction), which is valuable. The 'message' parameter is self-explanatory, and 'context' is not explained, but the most critical parameter is clarified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb+resource that differentiates it from sibling tools like 'authenticate', 'connect', and 'marketplace'.

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

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

The description gives clear context on when to use the tool (when reporting issues) and even instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use alternative tools, but the purpose is obvious enough to guide selection.

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 and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as output format or whether it requires any setup, but it does not contradict annotations either.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple informational 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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It indicates the tool provides version information, and the annotations cover safety. No additional information is required for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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%. The description correctly notes that it shows versions, which is sufficient given the parameterless nature. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, and the description meets that baseline without adding unnecessary detail.

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 shows current MCP platform and adapter versions. It is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate or marketplace, though it lacks an explicit comparison.

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 when version information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Given the simple nature of the tool, a 3 is appropriate as the context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are 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 indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description aligns with this and adds no conflicting information, giving a clear and consistent picture.

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

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with the key action (Returns) front-loaded and all relevant details included without extraneous 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 has no parameters and a straightforward read operation, the description fully outlines the returned information, making it complete in 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?

The input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The description appropriately focuses on the output and requires no parameter explanations.

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 the toolkit state, listing specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate and connect.

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

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

The description explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor provide any usage conditions or exclusions.

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