Prefeitura GO Perolândia: Licitações

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains that tokens can be used for a permanent non-expiring connection or a session-only login, and that calling with no args returns a link. This complements the idempotentHint=true annotation by implying repeated calls with the same token are safe. It does not contradict any 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 longer than minimal, but every sentence adds value: it states the purpose, gives the recommended permanent option, and the alternative session approach. It is front-loaded with purpose and structured logically, though a tighter wording could improve it slightly.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main usage scenarios (config vs session, with/without token). It does not detail return values or error handling, but the essential behaviors are described. Sibling tools like 'connect' may offer alternative flows, but the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke this 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 schema has one optional parameter 'token' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT and that omitting it yields a link, while including it performs a session login. This provides necessary semantic meaning that the 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 states that this tool authenticates an IDE agent via a browser login and access token. It specifies the resource (MCP.AI for IDE agents) and the action (logging in and copying the token), which distinguishes it from a generic 'authenticate' name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'connect' tool, which could serve a similar purpose.

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 guidance: it explains the recommended permanent approach (add token to server config) and the session-only approach (call with token or with no args to get a link). This gives concrete direction on when to call the tool with arguments versus without. It does not mention alternative siblings for exclusion, but the context is clear enough for basic usage.

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 goes beyond the read-only annotation by detailing exact return values in two scenarios (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), including the fields 'authenticated', 'pending', and 'connect_url'. This fully discloses expected behavior.

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 avoids unnecessary details. It is succinct and directly informative.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers the expected behavior in all relevant states. It provides enough context for an agent to understand what will be returned and when.

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 there is nothing to describe. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the schema already covers an empty parameter set. This is trivially complete.

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 that the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific conditions for different states (all connected vs. missing credentials). This is a precise and unambiguous description of the tool's purpose.

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 outcomes based on connection state, which gives some usage context, but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings like 'authenticate'. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit about selection among 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 discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it explains that invoke runs a tool without installing it, may return connect or checkout links, and that install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel require owner/admin. It also notes that installations become permanent in the toolkit. These details add meaningful context beyond the basic readOnlyHint=false flag.

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 very long and sprawling, exceeding several paragraphs. It is front-loaded with the core purpose but lacks structural breaks (e.g., bullets) to aid scanning. While the verbosity is partly justified by the tool's complexity, it could be organized more efficiently without losing critical details.

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 high complexity (multiple actions, 23 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the end-to-end flow, install vs. invoke semantics, auth/payment error handling, workspace permissions, and the separate prompt library feature. Everything an agent needs to know to use this tool effectively is explained.

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 23 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the critical 'action' enum and explains how key parameters like query, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt_* are used within the described flows. While it doesn't detail every parameter, it covers the most impactful ones and provides the operational context needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 with specific responsibilities: discovering and running MCPs, plus managing prompts. It distinguishes from siblings by enumerating internal actions (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and the prompt library. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 the tool and its sub-actions, including the core flow (search→describe→invoke), the distinction between invoke and install (prefer invoke for one-off, install for permanent), and when to use list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, and request_mcp. It also notes that write operations require owner/admin. This is comprehensive usage guidance with clear exclusions and 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 context beyond the annotations: since the tool is read-only (readOnlyHint: true) and idempotent (idempotentHint: true), the description complements with usage nuances. It clarifies that data is public, no platform credentials are required, usage is billed per query with prepaid credits, and includes LGPD privacy disclaimers. This is a solid addition, though it still leaves some aspects, like rate limits or failure behavior, undisclosed.

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 generally concise and structured, with a single clear message about the tool's purpose and an important note about data usage. The mention of LGPD and commercial terms is useful context but is slightly lengthy. Overall, every part earns its place, though some information could be tightened for consistency.

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 (6 parameters, 4 required), the description covers many aspects: it states that the data is public, explains the payment model, and quotes the LGPD privacy law, which are important for the agent to comply with. However, it does not explain expected return values or behavior beyond 'consulta', and the lack of output schema means that return format is not specified. The description is adequate for the agent to use the tool correctly, though it could benefit from clarifying response behavior.

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 provides parameter names (query, orgao, situacao, modalidade, etc.) with no descriptions or enums, and the tool description has 0% schema coverage. However, some parameters (e.g., orgao, modalidade) are self-explanatory in the procurement context, and the description's mention of 'consulta' implies search behavior. Still, the description provides no explicit guidance on how parameters should be filled, leaving the agent to infer semantics from the schema names alone. Since schema coverage is at 0%, the description does not 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a query tool for public procurement (licitações) from the official source of Perolândia/GO, using the verb 'consultar' (consult), which fits the resource. Although it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, it does state that it provides information from official Brazilian sources, which is helpful context. The description could be more direct, but it successfully communicates the tool's core function.

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 that the tool should be used for consulting public bidding information from Perolândia and that it is powered by the platform, requires prepaid credits, and accesses public (non-confidential) data. However, it does not explicitly clarify when to use this tool as opposed to other sibling tools or when not to use it. It explains the payment and data privacy context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative scenarios.

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 basic info (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds the instruction to include the conversation for reproduction, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., ticket creation, response format) or any potential side effects beyond what annotations imply, so value added is moderate.

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, starts with the purpose, and includes a concise instruction. Every word is useful; there is no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (one required), no output schema, and no enums/nested objects, the description is largely complete. It covers the main purpose and provides guidance for reproduction. It could mention that message is required or that context is optional, but the schema already carries that information, so the description offers sufficient context for the tool's complexity.

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 as an array for reproduction, but does not clarify 'context' or 'message.' 'message' is obviously the report text, but 'context' remains ambiguous. Since only one of three parameters is partially explained, the description falls short of providing full parameter meaning.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, or show_version, which serve entirely different functions.

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 context on when to use the tool (to report issues or feedback) and offers a specific usage hint: include the conversation array for reproduction. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though siblings are unrelated, so the guidance is adequate 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?

The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). It does not add extra behavioral context beyond the annotations, but there is 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured 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?

The description fully conveys the tool's purpose for a simple read-only operation. It does not detail the exact output format or return value, but that is not essential given the 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing schema info.

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 specific and distinct from 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others, but its purpose is self-evident for retrieving version info. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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 the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds insight into the content of the response (connection status, accounts, etc.) but does not disclose behavioral nuances like authentication requirements or failure modes. This is adequate but not rich.

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, focused sentence listing every important aspect of what it returns, with no fluff or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded and direct, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp its purpose.

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 at all, and the description explicitly lists the four components of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), it is sufficiently complete for an informational read-only tool. It does not mention if authentication is needed, but given siblings for auth, this is acceptable.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description, while providing no parameter-specific guidance (none exist), does not need to add any since the input schema is empty. It fully covers what the tool does with respect to 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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'current toolkit state', enumerates the exact information provided (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate/connect which handle actions rather than state inspection.

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 the toolkit status, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose hints at usage, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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