Prefeitura SP Guarulhos: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. But the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like what happens if the token is invalid, or that the session token expires, beyond saying it's session-only. Given the annotations are minimal, some more context could be added.

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 compact but information-dense, covering multiple scenarios in two sentences. It uses a personable tone that is still clear. Slightly long but each clause provides value, so it earns a high score.

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 only 1 optional parameter, no output schema, and moderate complexity for authentication behavior, the description adequately covers both modes of invocation and the permanent alternative. It could mention common pitfalls (e.g., token expiry or needing to restart server), but it is mostly complete for an 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 only defines a 'token' string with no description, and the description partially explains it: it must be a JWT pasted by the user. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not elaborate on token format or validation beyond calling it a JWT. It would be better to explain what happens if omitted (gets link) vs. provided (session login).

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 is for authentication, specifying it logs in via browser and returns an access token or accepts a pasted token. However, it could be more precise about the operation (getting auth link vs. validating token) and could differentiate from the sibling tool 'connect' more explicitly.

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?

It explicitly explains both primary use cases: with no args to get the login link, and with a token for session login. It also recommends a better permanent configuration approach via headers, which is helpful 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?

The description discloses two distinct response states (authenticated:true + empty pending[], or connect_url + per-install URLs). It goes beyond annotations by explaining what the tool returns in different situations, which is valuable behavioral context not captured by readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then clarify conditional behavior. Every word adds value; no filler 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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema, read-only), the description adequately covers the two main cases. It could be slightly more explicit about the intended use (e.g., 'Use this to verify authentication status'), but it is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly focuses on return values rather than parameters, as none exist.

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 ('Returns') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like `authenticate` and `show_version` by focusing on connectivity state, which is a unique 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 implicitly indicates when to use it (to check connection status) by describing behavior under different conditions (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the zero-parameter nature makes the usage context clear.

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 annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses that writes require workspace owner/admin, invoke runs tools without installation, and may return connect/checkout links for auth/payment. It also explains installed vs one-off behavior and the prompt library's shareable links, adding significant 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 long but every sentence adds value, covering the core flow, edge cases like authentication and billing, and prompt library specifics. It is structured with action groups and avoids redundancy, front-loading the main purpose before diving into 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?

For a tool with 23 parameters and many actions, the description covers the essential use cases, including auth, billing, and the distinction between installed and one-off execution. However, it omits details on some actions like 'resume' and 'immediate', and does not explain all parameter combinations. Still, the coverage is strong given the 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains core parameters like action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related fields (prompt_slug, prompt_vars, etc.) through the described flows. However, it doesn't explicitly describe all 23 parameters (e.g., cancel_reason, immediate, resume), but it provides enough context for the main actions.

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 is the official mcp.ai marketplace catalog and runtime, enumerates supported actions, and distinguishes itself from siblings by covering capability requests like 'find an MCP that does X'. It specifies the core flow (search→describe→invoke) and contrasts with alternative tools like authenticate and connect.

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 explicitly explains when to use invoke vs install (prefer invoke for occasional use, install for permanent), mentions auth and billing prerequisites, and clarifies that search/describe flag installed statuses. It also covers when to use prompt library actions versus MCP actions, giving clear context for 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?

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, the description adds context about the data source being official and non-confidential, and clarifies payment via prepaid credits. It doesn't contradict annotations; it supplements them with data governance (LGPD) 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 concise, one sentence, but packs multiple pieces of information: what it does, source, payment model, data type, and legal responsibility. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and adds context without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main context: official source, payment method, and legal compliance. However, it omits parameter semantics and does not mention expected output format (e.g., certificate status), which could be important for the agent.

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 parameters are not described in the description. The description does not explain that 'cpf' and 'cnpj' are mutually exclusive identifiers, nor their formats. The schema's basic string types provide minimal guidance, so the description fails to 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 consults a Negative Debt Certificate (Certidão Negativa de Débitos) from the Guarulhos city prefecture, using an official source. It specifies the resource (CND) and action (consult), and distinguishes itself from generic siblings by naming the specific municipality 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 implies usage for obtaining official debt status information, but does not explain when to use this versus other tools. It mentions payment per query and no platform credentials, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or 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?

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds an instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is useful context, but it does not describe what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation, response) or any other side effects.

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 purpose, and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear and direct.

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 relatively simple, and the description covers its core purpose. However, since the schema provides no parameter details, the description should have compensated by explaining all parameters, but it only addresses the conversation field. This gap leaves users uncertain about the 'context' parameter.

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 has 0% description coverage for its three parameters. The tool description only explains 'conversation' (the array for reproduction), leaving 'message' and 'context' undescribed. While 'message' is self-explanatory, 'context' is ambiguous and not addressed.

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 with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which serve different purposes.

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 conveys when to use the tool (when encountering a bug, missing feature, or providing feedback) and implicitly implies it is for communication with developers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though none are relevant.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it shows 'platform and adapter versions,' which aligns with the read-only nature but adds no further behavioral details like return format or depth. It does not 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?

A single, clear, and front-loaded sentence. No wasted words, and the purpose is immediately apparent. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 params, no output schema), the description is adequate. It communicates the core function. However, it could mention what the output looks like (e.g., text with version numbers) to fully complete the picture, though this is a minor gap for such a straightforward read operation.

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 the schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed. With no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter-related information because none exists.

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 'Show' with a specific resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, and there is no ambiguity about 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'toolkit_info' which might serve a similar function, but the description offers no context or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by detailing what state is returned (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts). It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured metadata.

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 action and then lists the key outputs. Every word contributes meaning, with no irrelevant detail 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 simple, zero-parameter read-only info tool with strong annotations, the description fully covers what the tool returns. No output schema is required because the description explicitly enumerates the main categories of returned data.

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 has no parameter documentation burden. Per the rubric, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4, and the description appropriately spends no space on 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state') and lists the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or authenticate, 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 the tool is for inspecting toolkit state but does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The agent must infer its usage from sibling names, which gives some guidance but not explicit direction.

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