Prefeitura CE Jaguaretama: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with this by describing a non-destructive authentication process. However, it does not deeply explain behavioral specifics like side effects (e.g., state changes, session management) beyond what annotations imply, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 and well-structured, front-loading the primary purpose and then providing clear usage instructions in a logical order. It contains no fluff and every sentence contributes to understanding how to use the 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 moderate complexity (multiple usage modes, output is a link), no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers key aspects: how to get the token, how to use it, and session vs. permanent options. It lacks some details about the exact output structure, but it is sufficient for an agent to take action.

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 only parameter 'token' is not described in the schema (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining that 'token' is a JWT to paste for session-only login. It adds meaningful semantics about the token's purpose and optionality, which is helpful for the agent.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to authenticate the user for MCP.AI for IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on the authentication flow and token acquisition.

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 instructions on when to use the tool and how: it explains the two modes of usage (permanent via config header and session-only via token argument), and when to call with no args. It also suggests the best practice of adding the token to the server config for permanent 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 already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by revealing the two distinct output states and the exact fields returned in each state. No side effects or auth requirements are discussed, but the added conditional behavior is useful.

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 core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information. It avoids repetition of the title or annotations and contains 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?

For a parameterless, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is returned in all-connected and missing-credentials cases. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. The baseline for a parameterless tool is high, and the description appropriately focuses on output behavior instead of inputs.

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, and it distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on status rather than authentication or marketplace actions. The conditional output details (authenticated:true vs connect_url) make the purpose concrete and unambiguous.

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 conditional context for when the tool reports full connectivity versus when it returns connection URLs for missing credentials. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it for checking connection status.

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

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond annotations: it explains that invoke works even without installation, returns connect links for credential needs, and checkout links for empty wallets, then instructs to retry. It also notes that writes require owner/admin and mentions the installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags. This adds significant context not present in 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 long but packed with essential information for a complex multi-action tool. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then details the flow, exceptions, auth requirements, and prompt library sequentially. Each sentence adds value, and the structure makes it easy to navigate despite its length.

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 complexity (23 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main flows well but leaves gaps: it doesn't explain how to construct the 'arguments' JSON, the role of 'immediate' or 'tier_slug', or the output format of list_tools. While it handles core use cases, aspects like pagination limits and cancel/subscribe details are omitted, making completeness partial.

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, but it only explains a subset of the 23 parameters (action, mcp_id, tool_id, prompt_*). It does not clarify parameters like limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, cancel_reason, request_name, etc., leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone. While core actions are covered, many parameters remain underspecified.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as 'the official mcp.ai marketplace' and outlines its dual role as a catalog and runner of MCPs/tools. It enumerates specific actions (search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its comprehensive scope and unique invoke-on-demand feature.

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

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

It provides explicit guidance on when to use each action: 'Core flow' details the search→describe→invoke sequence, and it advises 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' versus install for permanent additions. It also specifies the prompt library usage and notes owner/admin requirements for writes, giving clear context and exclusions.

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 behavioral details beyond annotations, such as prepaid payment per consultation and data controller responsibilities, which are not covered by the readOnly/idempotent hints. However, it does not fully disclose all potential side effects or conditions.

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 moderately concise but includes verbose legal and platform details. It is structured as a single paragraph and is not excessively long, but could be streamlined.

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 lacks essential context: it does not explain the parameters, expected output (the certificate), or any error conditions. This makes the tool incomplete for a user to invoke it correctly without additional knowledge.

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 does not explain the meaning or usage of the 'cpf' and 'cnpj' parameters. Since the schema provides no field descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter semantics completely 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 the tool provides consultation for a Negative Debt Certificate (Certidão Negativa de Débitos) from Jaguaretama City Hall, which is a specific and distinct purpose compared to sibling tools like authenticate or report_bug.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions payment prerequisites and data privacy but does not provide selection criteria or conditions 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 provide some info but description adds little about behavior. It mentions including conversation for reproduction, but not outcomes or side effects.

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 and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

It does not cover all parameters, nor does it describe expected outcomes or error conditions. Incomplete for a bug reporting 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 description only mentions the 'conversation' parameter, and incorrectly calls it an 'array' while the schema defines it as a string. It does not explain 'message' or 'context'.

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. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are for authentication, connection, marketplace, etc.

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 usage when the user wants to report an issue, and instructs to include conversation for reproduction, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying exactly what is shown (platform and adapter versions), which goes beyond the generic 'Show Version' title. This is sufficient contextual detail.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys all necessary information without any fluff. It is front-loaded and directly states the purpose. 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 (no parameters, no output schema, non-destructive), the description is complete. It tells the user exactly what will be shown (platform and adapter versions). There is no additional context required for a version-checking 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since there are none; it correctly omits any parameter 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 function: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It uses a specific verb (Show) and identifies the resource (versions). This is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, so there is no ambiguity.

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

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

The description implies when to use it (when you need version information), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. However, given the simplicity and the clear purpose, a user can infer appropriate usage. No explicit guidance on alternatives is needed because no sibling tool serves a similar purpose.

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 states it returns state, aligning with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. It adds specific details about what is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations and confirms no side effects. No additional behavioral concerns are needed.

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 is succinct, front-loaded with the verb 'Returns', and packs all relevant details. 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 it's a zero-parameter, read-only info tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns sufficiently. It doesn't mention error conditions or performance, but for its simplicity this is adequate. A perfect score might require a note on why to use it, but it's clear enough.

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 parametersholen, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. Schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description provides all necessary context for invocation. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), enumerating the exact information provided (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like connect or authenticate, 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 implies this is for checking toolkit status, which gives clear context for when to use it (e.g., to see what's connected). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools.

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