Prefeitura SP Hortolândia: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context about the token lifecycle (non-expiring vs. session-only) and explains the browser login step, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention what happens after successful authentication (e.g., response format or side effects on server state), so it's not fully transparent.

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 but somewhat lengthy; the first sentence introduces the purpose, the second provides detailed instructions. Every part contributes useful information, but it could be slightly more streamlined without losing clarity.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the authentication flow, usage patterns, and parameter semantics. Annotations cover safety, so no further disclosure is needed. It is complete for its scope.

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, the description compensates by clearly explaining the token parameter: it is an optional JWT for session-only login, and the no-arg call fetches the link. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema definition, though it doesn't describe the token format in detail.

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 facilitates authentication for IDE agents via browser login and token handling. It explicitly identifies the resource (access token) and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace' 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?

Provides explicit usage instructions with two distinct methods: permanent configuration via header vs. session-only token paste. It explains when to call with no args (to get link) and when to pass a token, and even recommends the permanent config as best practice, offering clear 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to reiterate safety. It adds valuable context about conditional outputs based on connection state (all connected vs credentials missing), which goes beyond annotations. 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Returns connection status and URLs'), and each sentence adds meaningful detail. No waste, concise and structured clearly.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains return values for the two main scenarios. However, it does not address the case where some but not all providers are connected, which is an edge case. For a simple tool with no params, this is fairly complete but leaves 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 0 parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. According to instructions, baseline is 4 for 0 params. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. It still provides context about the tool's function, so a 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 the tool's function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It specifies the resource (connection status and URLs) and provides concrete details about return values (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on connection status, which is distinct from authenticate (action), marketplace, show_version, etc.

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 by describing two scenarios: when all providers are connected and when credentials are missing. This tells the agent when to expect certain outputs but does not explicitly state 'use this to check connection status' or mention alternatives. It provides context without exclusions, so it's clear but not fully 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?

The description extensively discloses behaviors beyond the annotations: it explains that invoke can run tools without installing, may require credentials or payment and returns links, that writes need owner/admin, and that search/describe flag installation status. This adds significant value over the sparse 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?

The description is a single long block of text, not front-loaded with the most critical info. While it follows a logical order (core flow, invoke caveats, install vs invoke, etc.), it is overly verbose and could be condensed into structured bullet points. Each sentence adds value, but the overall length is excessive.

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 no output schema, the description covers the overall behavior, the distinction between invoke/install, permission requirements, and the prompt library. However, it lacks details on parameter formats, response structures, and specific edge cases for each action, which prevents a perfect score.

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 explains the meaning of the action enum and some fields (e.g., mcp_id, tool_id) via the flow, but it fails to describe most of the 23 parameters, such as limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_* fields, and cancel_reason. This leaves many parameters undefined for the agent.

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, covering both discovery/run of MCPs and the prompt library. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the central hub for these capabilities, with an explicit core flow (search → describe → invoke) that outlines its scope.

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 (e.g., 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'), and contrasts with alternatives like list_tools, subscribe/cancel, request_mcp, and the separate prompt actions. It also mentions permission requirements (owner/admin) 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?

A descrição vai além dos annotation, pois informa explicitamente que a consulta é pública, não sigilosa, paga por consulta, sem credenciais da plataforma, e que o cliente é controlador de dados LGPD. Nenhuma contradição com os 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?

Descrição curta, com quatro frases, todas informativas. O texto vai direto ao propósito principal e depois adiciona detalhes essenciais de negócio e LGPD, sem ruído ou redundância.

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?

A ferramenta é simples: 3 parâmetros sem obrigação, sem enum e sem schema de saída. A descrição cobre bem contexto geral (fonte, custo, não sigiloso, controle de dados). Porém, falta definir como relacionar os parâmetros ao uso e qual é o retorno esperado, deixando a descrição parcialmente completa.

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?

Os parâmetros cpf, cnpj e tipo_certidao estão no schema sem descrição, e a descrição da ferramenta não os menciona. Assim, o agente não saberá se deve informar um ou ambos os documentos, nem o que significa tipo_certidao. A descrição não compensa a baixa cobertura do 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?

A descrição deixa claro que a ferramenta 'consulta a Certidão Negativa de Débitos da Prefeitura de Hortolândia em fonte oficial'. O verbo 'consultar' e o recurso 'Certidão Negativa de Débitos' estão explicitados e a diferenciam dos equivalentes genéricos.

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?

A descrição oferece contexto claro de uso: consulta de informação pública, hospedada pela plataforma, sem credenciais da plataforma, com pagamento por crédito pré-pago e responsável LGPD. Não há menção explícita a alternativas, mas o contexto é suficiente para atender aos objetivos.

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 the operation is idempotent, non-destructive, and not read-only. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the need to include recent messages as a conversation array for reproduction, which is a key requirement not visible in the annotations. No contradiction exists with 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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose (report bug/feature/feedback) and then supplies the most critical usage detail (include conversation array). 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?

Given the tool's simple interface (3 flat parameters, no output schema) and supporting annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and one key input requirement. It lacks details about the return value or post-submission behavior, but for a feedback-reporting tool 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the 'conversation' parameter as an array of recent messages for reproduction. The required 'message' parameter is implicitly clear from the tool's purpose, but 'context' receives no explanation, leaving a gap. This is marginally acceptable but not fully compensating.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This precisely defines the tool's action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, show_version, and marketplace, which serve entirely 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 implies when to use the tool (when a bug, missing feature, or feedback needs to be submitted) and gives a specific instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps, so 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.

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 covered. The description adds nothing beyond the purpose; it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like output format or side effects (e.g., 'returns version strings'). With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still provides no extra context worth crediting.

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, efficient sentence that says exactly what is needed. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It is ideally sized for a simple, parameterless 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?

With no output schema, the description could explain what the tool returns (e.g., version numbers or a structured list). It only says 'versions' without detail, which is adequate but not thorough. Given the simplicity and existing annotations, it is minimally complete, but mentioning the return type would raise the score.

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 fully covers everything. No description of parameters is needed, and the description doesn't attempt to add anything irrelevant. The baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools is appropriate here.

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 action ('show') and the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace. It leaves 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?

The description states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it or how it differs from alternatives. There is no obvious alternative, so the context is implied, but no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. A more explicit 'Use this to check which version you're running' would earn a higher score.

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 readOnly=true, idempotent=true, and destructive=false. The description aligns with these by stating it returns state without modifications. It adds no extra behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, so the baseline score of 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, concise sentence that enumerates the returned information without any fluff or redundancy. It is well-structured and effectively communicates the tool's function.

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?

Although no output schema is provided, the description sufficiently outlines what the tool returns (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count). For a no-parameter read-only tool, this level of detail is adequate to understand its use.

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 complete (no parameters to document). Per the rubric, 0 parameters earn a baseline score of 4, and the description does not need to explain any 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 the tool's purpose: to return the current toolkit state, listing specific aspects (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count). This is a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like `authenticate` or `show_version`.

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 when the caller needs an overview of the toolkit's state. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or recommend alternatives, but the context is clear and no exclusions are needed for a simple read-only info tool.

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