Prefeitura SE Laranjeiras: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Beyond the basic annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it distinguishes between permanent (config) and ephemeral (session) logins, and mentions the token is a JWT. It does not cover error handling or token expiry, but the additional details are substantial.

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 primary action ('log in in the browser'), followed by clear options. Every sentence adds operational value without fluff, making it concise yet comprehensive.

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 auth tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage modes, and parameter semantics. It is fully complete for an agent to invoke 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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the optional 'token' parameter: it should contain a JWT when pasted by the user, and the no-arg call fetches the link. This gives complete meaning beyond the raw 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 authenticate the user by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It uses specific verbs (log in, copy token) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' by focusing on the authentication 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 provides explicit usage guidance: either add the token to the server config for a permanent connection or paste it for a session-only login. It also instructs to call with no args to get the link, covering all invocation modes clearly.

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 behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations, such as the exact response conditions ('authenticated:true', 'empty pending[]', 'connect_url' when credentials missing). 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds useful information. 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with strong annotations, the description fully covers the relevant behavior and conditional outcomes. It explains both success and missing-credential cases, so no important context is missing.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly focuses on behavior and return values rather than parameter details, which is appropriate and sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 ('connection status and URLs'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'authenticate' by signaling this is a status/URL retrieval operation, not an authentication action.

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 usage context: it explains what happens when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like 'authenticate', but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to call this tool for connection status and URL information.

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 are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.) but the description adds substantial transparency: it states writes require workspace owner/admin, invoke runs without installing and returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, and clarifies that search/describe flag installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. No contradictions 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 dense and highly structured. It front-loads the core value proposition and flows logically from core MCP flow to install vs invoke to prompt library. Every sentence adds unique information; there is no fluff or repetition. 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 tool's complexity (23 params, 14 actions, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the main flows, edge cases (auth/payment), permission requirements, and the secondary prompt library. However, it does not describe return values or error handling, which would be beneficial given there is no output schema, 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 schema has 23 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It does explain key parameters like action (search/describe/invoke), tool_id, and arguments indirectly, but many others (limit, query, cancel_reason, prompt_* etc.) are not explicitly described. While it gives a general frame for the overall parameter semantics, it does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 MCP marketplace and explains its core purpose: discovering, describing, invoking, installing, and managing MCPs, plus a prompt library. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly outlining its many actions (search, describe, invoke, etc.) and even subsuming the sibling report_bug action, while making the distinction that it is the central platform for running 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each action: it outlines the core flow (search → describe → invoke), contrasts invoke vs install (invoke for one-off, install for permanent), explains when to use list_tools, subscribe/cancel for billing, search_prompts for prompt text, and request_mcp for new tools. It also clarifies behaviors like auth/payment links and workspace owner/admin requirements.

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 and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable information beyond annotations: it requires prepaid payment, does not use platform credentials, and clarifies data privacy (non-confidential, LGPD responsibilities). No contradictions with annotations; instead, it enriches the behavioral context.

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, compact paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then provides essential operational details (payment, credentials, legal). It is not overly verbose, though some sentences on LGPD could be trimmed for focus. Overall, it is efficient and structured logically.

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?

With no output schema and low parameter guidance, the description should explain expected return values and usage constraints. It does not mention what the output looks like or clarify parameter requirements (e.g., one of cpf/cnpj is needed). This leaves critical gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, making it incomplete for a simple but under-specified API.

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 defines two string parameters (cpf and cnpj) with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description fails to explain these parameters, their format, which one to use, or whether at least one is mandatory. Since coverage is zero, the description must compensate but does not, leaving the agent uncertain about how to populate the parameters.

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 is for consulting Certidão Negativa de Débitos (CND) from Prefeitura SE Laranjeiras, using an official source. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) which are generic and unrelated, making the purpose 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 explains when to use it (for official Brazilian source queries, same data as citizen access) and includes practical usage details like requiring prepaid credit and no platform credentials. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the sibling list does not contain any similar query tools, so the guidance is sufficient.

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 says

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, no redundancy, front-loaded with the primary purpose and the key parameter guidance. Every word serves a 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?

The tool is a simple feedback/report action with no output schema. The description covers the main param (conversation) and purpose, though it omits details about the message and context parameters. Given the simplicityholiness, it's fairly complete but could benefit from clarifying the message param.

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%, and the description only clarifies the 'conversation' parameter ('include the conversation array with recent messages'). It does not explain 'context' or provide additional semantics for 'message' beyond the schema, failing to fully compensate for the low coverage.

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:

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 specifies when to use the tool: report a bug, missing feature, or feedback) and gives an explicit instruction on what to include (conversation array for reproduction). It doesn't name alternative tools, but the instruction is clear and actionable.

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 context about the exact scope ('platform and adapter versions'), which is useful. It does not mention return format, but for a simple read-only info tool, this is sufficient.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and entirely adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 version tool, the description is complete. It clearly states the purpose, and the absence of an output schema is acceptable given the trivial expected return (version strings). No additional context seems 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 input schema is empty. With no parameters to describe, the baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema already indicates.

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 the specific verb 'Show' with a clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making it distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplaces. It immediately conveys what the tool does without 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 usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., toolkit_info might also provide version info). No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so it falls short of clear usage 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds value by specifying what the state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the state is cached, how fresh the data is, or any potential latency, but with strong annotations, 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific components. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete for its purpose. It clearly enumerates what the state includes, which is the key information an agent needs. It could potentially mention that the output is a summary or that it's a snapshot, but the current description is sufficient for a zero-parameter informational 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, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return value, which is the only relevant semantic content.

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 (returns state) and distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which are action-oriented.

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 are all actions (authenticate, connect, marketplace), the usage context is reasonably clear.

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