Prefeitura GO Rio Verde: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description goes beyond these by explaining that it can initiate a browser login and produce a link, and that token usage is session-only unless configured permanently. It also clarifies the token expiration semantics (permanent if in config, session if passed). This adds behavioral context beyond 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 concise and well-structured, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then detailing both usage paths. It earns its sentences by covering the essential workflow and configuration options without fluff. However, it could be slightly more concise by separating the two modes, but it's acceptable.

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?

Despite having only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: how to initiate login, how to use the token, and how to make it permanent. The context signals show low schema coverage (0%) and no output schema, but the description compensates well by explaining the token parameter and the two authentication flows. It leaves some ambiguity about what happens on success (e.g., return value) but is otherwise complete for a straightforward auth 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 token parameter with no description (0% coverage). The tool description explicitly explains the token parameter: it can be passed as a JWT after the user pastes it, or omitted to get the link. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition, effectively compensating for the missing schema description.

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: to authenticate a user by obtaining an access token. It specifies the resource (access token) and the action (log in), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' by focusing on authentication rather than establishing a connection per se. It explains two modes: permanent via config and session-only via pasting a token.

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 usage context: it explains when to use this tool (for IDE agents like Cursor), how to use it for permanent configuration (add to server config as a header) vs session-only (call with token or no args to get link). It also implies when not to use it (when you already have a permanent token configured, you might not need to call it again). This gives clear guidance on 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 behavioral detail beyond the read-only annotation by explaining the two possible outcomes: all connected or missing credentials. This gives users a clear expectation of the response format.

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, using two sentences to convey the essential information without unnecessary verbosity.

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 sufficient context for a status-checking tool, detailing the main outcomes. It does not specify exact response format or error cases, but given the simplicity and read-only nature, it is adequately complete.

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. Schema coverage is 100% and no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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: it returns connection status and URLs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate (which performs authentication) and others.

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 connection status, and the distinction from authenticate is clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparison with 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 behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals that writes require workspace owner/admin, explains that invoke runs tools one-off without adding to toolkit, and describes what happens when credentials or payment are needed (returns connect/checkout links). It does not contradict the readOnlyHint=false, and the extra detail about side effects and auth is highly valuable.

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 justified given the tool's complexity (multi-action hub with prompt library). It is front-loaded with the core flow and then expands into nuances. Though a single paragraph, it is well-organized and avoids fluff; structure could be improved with bullet points, but it efficiently covers a large surface area.

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 (23 params, many actions), the description covers the main flow, auth, billing, and prompt library, along with key behavior like invoke without install. However, it omits explanation for several parameters (e.g., limit, conversation, prompt_targets, immediate) and does not specify expected formats (e.g., arguments JSON). It is a solid high-level guide but leaves gaps that the agent must infer, so it is not fully complete.

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% and the description does not explain any of the 23 parameters by name or how they map to actions. It mentions action values and high-level flows but never clarifies parameters like mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_vars, or conversation. The agent cannot infer parameter usage from this description alone, making it inadequate given the complete lack of schema 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 states it is the official marketplace catalog and execution platform, explicitly covering capability requests like 'find an MCP that does X' and listing all major actions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by defining its scope as the central hub for discovering, running, installing, and managing MCPs, including a 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use each action, with a core flow (search → describe → invoke) and clear rules like 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'. It also details edge cases (invoke without install, auth links, payment links) and when to use report_bug and request_mcp, making alternatives and exclusions explicit.

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 operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral and policy context beyond those flags: payment per query with prepaid credits, no platform credentials required, data classified as non-confidential public information, and LGPD-related controller responsibilities. This helps the agent understand cost, access, and legal constraints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds necessary operational and legal context in a compact set of sentences. It is slightly dense due to LGPD and payment details, but every sentence contributes useful information and there is no wasteful repetition.

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 official source, payment model, data sensitivity, and read-only nature, which is good for tool selection. However, it omits invocation-critical details such as whether CPF or CNPJ must be provided and what form the returned certificate or consultation result takes, especially since no output schema is available.

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 two parameters (cpf/cnpj), the description was expected to clarify how and when each parameter should be used, but it does not mention them at all. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description offers no guidance on whether one or both are required, or how they map to natural persons vs. companies.

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 ('consulta') for a Certidão Negativa de Débitos from Prefeitura GO Rio Verde, naming both the specific resource and the official source. This makes the tool's function immediately identifiable and distinct from the generic platform 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 implies when to use the tool: to query an official Brazilian city source using prepaid credit, without platform credentials. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or required prerequisites such as which identifier (CPF or CNPJ) must be supplied.

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 declare idempotentHint=true, which is consistent with the description (reporting is a one-way action). The description adds the reproduction context detail but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as backend handling or potential side effects. With annotations covering idempotency, a 3 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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the purpose. No filler or redundant information, every sentence 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?

The tool is simple (3 params, no output schema), and the description covers the essential context including the reproduction requirement. However, it lacks details on what happens after reporting (e.g., response format, confirmation), which might be helpful but not critical for a bug reporting tool. Overall 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description references the 'conversation' parameter explicitly, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the 'message' and 'context' parameters are not elaborated, so the description only partially compensates. Baseline 3 for low coverage seems fair.

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 specifies the resource and action. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the sibling names (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) make it obvious this is for reporting 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?

The description implies when to use: when a bug is encountered or feedback needed. It explicitly instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction, adding usage context. However, it does not state when not to use it or alternative tools, so it meets minimum viable but lacks depth.

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 establish read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds clarity about what information is returned—platform and adapter versions—which is useful given there is no output schema.

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 that communicates the full purpose without unnecessary words or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, purely informational version tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It states what the tool shows and provides enough context for an agent to invoke it 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, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing missing and the description correctly reflects that the tool requires no 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 uses a clear verb ('Show') and specifies the exact resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when it would be appropriate to call it. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit context or exclusion guidance.

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 establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what information is returned, which is especially valuable because there is no output schema. It does not mention potential staleness or connection-related side effects, but none are expected for a read-only info query.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and result, then lists the key output categories. Every phrase contributes useful information with 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's low complexity, zero parameters, and strong annotations, this description is fully sufficient. It provides the essential return-value detail that would otherwise be missing without an output schema, making the tool's behavior clear and complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify semantically. The baseline for parameterless tools is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing unnecessary 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly defines the resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerated details: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes 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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need an overview of the toolkit's installed integrations and their statuses. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough that the usage context is clear.

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