Prefeitura PR Curitiba: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains that config-based auth is permanent and non-expiring while pasted tokens are session-only, and that calling with no args yields a link. This goes beyond 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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It packs in essential details without redundancy, though it is slightly long. It earns its place with 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?

For an authentication tool with minimal schema and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow: how to get a link, accept a token, and the two persistence modes. It does not describe error handling or invalid token behavior, but that is not critical for a first-time 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden of explaining the 'token' parameter. It clarifies that it is a JWT to be pasted from the browser, and that omitting it triggers a link generation. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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: to log in via browser, copy an access token, and provide ways to persist or use it for session-only access. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on authentication, not broader connections. The verb+resource is specific 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 gives explicit usage context: it explains both config-based permanent login and session-only token pasting, and clarifies when to call with or without the token. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like 'connect', leaving some implicit 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about conditional responses (all connected vs. missing credentials), which is valuable 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful detail about the response in different scenarios, with no 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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description adequately explains return values in the two key scenarios. It is comprehensive enough for a simple zero-parameter 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; there is nothing for the description 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 the tool returns connection status and URLs, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval rather than initiating 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 implied usage is clear: call this to check connection status. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'authenticate', though the context is clear enough for a simple status checker.

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 the sparse annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: invoke runs one-off without installing, missing credentials return a connect link, empty wallet triggers a checkout/top-up link, and the one-off install behind invoke requires workspace owner/admin. The prompt slug opens without login. 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 every sentence earns its place, covering the core flow, the key invoke distinction, permission requirements, and the separate prompt library. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses clear signal markers like 'KEY:' to emphasize the most important behavioral nuance.

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 complex multi-action tool with 23 params, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is highly complete: it explains discovery, invocation, installation, permissions, billing/auth fallbacks, and prompt-library actions. Minor gaps remain for actions like resume and parameters like immediate or tier_slug, but the overall context is sufficient for reliable tool selection.

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 coverage and 23 parameters, the description carries the compensation burden and does so substantially: it explains the meaning of action values, mcp_id/tool_id, arguments, and the prompt_* fields through the described flows. Some parameters like immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, and resume are left to naming inference, but the core execution parameters are well contextualized.

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 marketplace as mcp.ai's catalog and execution layer, with explicit verbs for discovery (search), inspection (describe), invocation (invoke), installation, and prompt-library actions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the exact request intents and the search→describe→invoke flow.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'; list_tools lists what is callable now; search/describe flag installed status; writes require owner/admin. It also separates the prompt-library flow from the MCP flow, so an agent can choose correctly.

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 such as no platform credentials required, prepaid credit payment, non-confidential data source, and LGPD responsibility for the client. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand costs and legal implications.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then adds payment, data source, and legal details. It is slightly verbose but each sentence provides distinct and useful information, making it efficient overall.

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 2 optional params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, payment, and legal aspects but omits critical details about the parameters (cpf/cnpj), their optionality, and what the tool actually returns. This leaves gaps for confident 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?

The schema has two parameters (cpf and cnpj) with no descriptions, and the description does not mention them at all. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate by explaining the parameters, but it fails to do so, leaving the agent to assume their purpose and relationship.

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 consults a Certidão Negativa de Débitos from Prefeitura PR Curitiba using the verb 'consultar' and specifies the resource. It distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools like authenticate or show_version by naming a specific city and certificate type.

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 is hosted, requires prepaid credits, and does not need platform credentials. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, though the specific city and certificate type imply its unique use case.

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 readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, setting expectations for side effects. The description adds useful guidance about including conversation history for reproduction, which complements the annotations without 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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose and a key usage hint without verbosity. 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 tool (3 string params, no enums, no nested objects), the description covers the primary use case and one critical detail (conversation array). It does not describe all params, but the tool's simplicity lowers the burden enough to be nearly 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'conversation' parameter's purpose but does not explain 'message' or 'context.' Partial compensation, not comprehensive.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Report' and identifies distinct resources ('bug, missing feature, or send feedback'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also stands apart from unrelated sibling tools like 'authenticate' 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?

Provides clear context on when to use (for bugs, feedback, missing features) and explicit instruction to include 'conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set is diverse enough that this isn't a major gap.

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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context that the command returns version information but does not expose additional behavioral details like network requirements, data freshness, or response size.

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 that conveys everything needed for a trivial zero-parameter tool. No wasted words or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 zero parameters, explicit annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for understanding its behavior. It states exactly what will be shown, so an agent can query this tool without further ambiguity.

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 an empty input schema, so there is no parameter detail to document. The description fully covers the meaningful semantic by stating what kind of version information is shown, meeting the baseline for no-parameter 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 clearly states the tool's function: displaying the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb and a specific resource, making it easy for an agent to distinguish it from the 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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit. The description indicates when to call the tool (to see versions), but it does not state when not to use it or mention any alternatives. For a simple zero-parameter informational tool this is acceptable but not excellent.

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, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then enumerates the specific data points. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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, read-only informational tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns in sufficient detail. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the description enumerating the return contents. Could potentially mention the format (e.g., JSON structure) but this is a minor gap.

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 doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return value rather than parameters. No parameter documentation 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 returns the current toolkit state, listing specific elements: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, 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 implies this is a read-only informational tool for checking the toolkit's current state, which is clear context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but given the sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace), the purpose is distinct enough that 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.