Prefeitura RJ Rio de Janeiro: Certidão Tributária de IPTU

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds context beyond that: it details the authentication flow (browser login, copy token, add to config or paste here) and explains session vs. permanent behavior. It doesn't contradict 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 informative but slightly verbose, containing two sentences with detailed instructions. It front-loads the main purpose and then explains the two usage modes. A bit verbose but earning its place with necessary 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 complexity (authentication flow), the description adequately explains the process and both usage modes. The output schema is absent, but the description hints at what happens (returns a link when no args, likely confirms login with token). It covers the essential context for a tool with low schema coverage.

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 only one optional parameter 'token' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that the 'token' parameter is for pasting a JWT for session-only login, and that calling with no args gives the link. This adds meaning beyond the 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 purpose: authenticate by logging into the browser to obtain an access token, for use with IDE agents. It specifies the action (log in, copy token) and the resource (this server's config or session), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning IDE agents and the use of an Authorization header.

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 when to use the tool: after the user pastes a token, or with no args to get the link. It also provides alternative options (permanent config vs. session-only), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus siblings like 'connect' or 'marketplace'.

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 description's emphasis on status checking adds little beyond the annotations. However, it does provide some context by describing the two return scenarios (authenticated:true vs. connect_url), which is helpful but not extensive.

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 useful information about behavior and output. No 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?

Given the simple nature (no parameters, no output schema) and the annotations that cover safety, the description is quite complete. It covers the main use case and specifies what to expect in both success and missing-credential scenarios. A small gap: it doesn't mention whether there are any side effects or rate limits, but for a read-only status check with annotations, this is sufficient.

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 provides no parameter information. The description adds value by explaining the output conditions, which is the main semantic content. Since there are no parameters to document, a 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 what the tool does: it returns connection status and URLs. It also explains the two possible output scenarios (all connected vs. credentials missing), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like 'authenticate'.

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, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'. It could benefit from a note like 'use this to verify connectivity before other operations'.

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 only indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries much of the transparency burden. It discloses that invoke works without installing, returns connect links for credentials and checkout links for payments, requires owner/admin for writes, and notes the one-off install behind invoke. This is substantial, but a couple of specifics (e.g., what 'pontualmente' means exactly) could be expanded.

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 long single paragraph covering many facets, but it is well-organized by action and efficiently introduces the core flow and key distinctions. It is dense but not rambling. Slight splitting into sections could improve scannability, but it earns 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 high parameter count (23), no output schema, and limited annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers the purpose, all major actions, permission requirements, credential/payment handling, and the prompt library. No significant gaps for an agent to choose and invoke the right 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?

With 23 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description must explain the action enum and its role in dispatching. It does map many actions to their intended inputs (e.g., search_prompts, get_prompt, invoke), but many parameters like request_name, tier_slug, and prompt_targets are not explicitly tied to specific actions—though they are somewhat inferable.

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 platform, with a core flow (search → describe → invoke) that distinguishes it from sibling tools. It explicitly covers capability requests like 'find an MCP that does X' and 'consulta um CPF', and differentiates invoke from install.

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 each action: search to discover, describe to get details, invoke for one-off runs (works even when not installed), install for permanent addition, subscribe/cancel for billing, list_tools for callable now, and request_mcp for new builds. It also notes permission requirements for writes.

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, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds information about no credentials required, payment via prepaid credits, and LGPD data control responsibilities, which goes beyond 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?

Description is moderately concise but contains redundancy, repeating the 'official source' concept and legal disclaimer information, though overall it is not overly verbose.

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?

Description clarifies the nature of the query (official, paid) but omits any description of the expected output or the meaning of the required parameter, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

Input schema has one required string parameter 'inscricao' with no description; description does not explain what 'inscricao' refers to, leaving the parameter semantics undefined.

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 clearly states it queries the IPTU tax certificate from Rio de Janeiro's official source, distinguishing it from unrelated 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?

Description gives context about being a paid query with prepaid credits and official source, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or prerequisites beyond having the inscription number.

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 idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral nuance that reproduction data (conversation) should be included, but it does not disclose potential side effects, data transmission details, or failure behaviors. This is adequate but not rich; the bar is lowered by annotations, yet more context (e.g., 'sends report to maintainers') would improve transparency.

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 a clear purpose and immediately giving a key usage guideline. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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, no nested objects). The description covers the core purpose and the most important usage detail (conversation for reproduction). It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists, and for a reporting tool this is acceptable. Slightly more detail on what happens after submission could make it fully complete, but it is largely 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden. It explicitly explains the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array...'), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify 'message' or 'context', though their names are self-explanatory. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but could be more thorough.

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 combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools (e.g., authenticate, show_version). The mention of 'Include the conversation array' adds a specific reproduction detail without obscuring the primary 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 context for when to use the tool (to report bugs/feedback) and gives an explicit usage instruction: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the sibling tools are clearly unrelated, so the intended usage is unambiguous.

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 destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about what is shown (platform and adapter versions) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond that.

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 is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. It fully communicates the purpose without fluff.

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, annotations covering safety), the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No additional context is necessary.

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 is trivially covered. The description accurately conveys that no inputs are needed, and with 0 parameters the baseline for parameter semantics is 4.

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 'Show' with a clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), which distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The usage is implied (when version info is needed), but there is no discussion of exclusions or compared to other tools.

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 disclosing the exact content of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), but doesn't mention things like error behavior or fallback responses.

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?

A single sentence that is information-dense but immediately clear, front-loading the verb 'Returns' and then enumerating the response contents. Every clause provides value with 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 info tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description completely covers what an agent needs: what the function does and what information it returns. No additional context is needed given the tool's simplicity and the annotations already provided.

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 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description accurately reflects the parameterless nature by using 'Returns... state', implying it takes no input. Nothing more needed from the description for parameter understanding.

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 resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates exactly what is included ('installed MCPs... connection status... accounts connected... how many catalog tools each exposes'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like `show_version` or `marketplace`, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 implicitly signals this is a read-only status/discovery tool (use for checking toolkit state), which is distinct from siblings like `authenticate` or `connect`. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus `show_version` or `marketplace`, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection boundaries.

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