Prefeitura SP Osasco: Certidão de Não-Inscrição

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

The description mentions permanent vs session-only but does not explicitly state side effects like writing to config or storing tokens. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, implying potential modification, but the description does not fully disclose this. No contradiction, but more transparency needed.

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 somewhat rambling with user instructions (e.g., 'log in in the browser, copy the access token'), but it remains relatively concise and structured. It could be more streamlined but 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?

Given the schema and absence of output schema, the description covers both usage modes and the parameter behavior. It sufficiently explains how to call the tool (with token or without) and what to expect, making it complete for a simple 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 has one optional parameter 'token', and the description explains that providing it enables session login, while omitting it returns a link. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 indicates the tool is for authentication, explaining two methods: obtaining a link or providing a token. It distinguishes from sibling tools like connect, marketplace, etc., by focusing on auth.

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 guidance on when to use it: either to get a link (no args) or to authenticate with a token. It also contrasts with config-based permanent auth vs session-only, which helps the agent choose.

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, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds conditional behavior (authenticated:true when all connected, connect_url when credentials missing), which provides useful context 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 concise, with a purpose statement followed by two conditional behavior clauses. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses minimal, effective language.

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, parameterless status-check tool with no output schema, the description explains the two primary states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and what URLs are returned. It's complete enough for an agent to understand when to call it, though it could mention partial connection states more explicitly.

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%, so the description rightly doesn't discuss parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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, specifying the exact response structure for both connected and missing-credential cases. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'authenticate' tool, which handles 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 implies usage for checking connection status, while sibling 'authenticate' is for performing authentication. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'use this when you need to verify connectivity' or name the alternative tool, so guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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 adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: invoke works even without installation, does not bloat the tool list, returns connect/checkout links when needed, and writes require workspace owner/admin. This meaningfully extends the sparse annotation hints 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 dense and front-loaded, starting with the core search→describe→invoke flow before covering edge cases and auth. It is long, but the tool is complex with 14 actions; most sentences earn their place. A tighter structure could improve scanability.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides complete operational context: the core flow, one-off vs permanent installation, credential and payment link behavior, permission requirements, installed flags, and the separate prompt-library subsystem. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the correct action in most scenarios.

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 and 23 parameters, the description carries a heavy burden and largely succeeds for the core workflow: it explains action routing, tool_id selection, install vs invoke semantics, and prompt-library parameters. Some optional parameters like cancel_reason, immediate, tier_slug, and prompt_targets are not individually explained, but the main actions and their key parameters are semantically enriched.

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 tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace and explains its dual role: cataloging MCPs/tools and running them. It names the core actions (search, describe, invoke, install) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by covering the marketplace/prompt-library domain.

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?

Explicit routing guidance is provided: prefer invoke for one-off use, use install only for permanent additions, list_tools shows currently callable tools, and request_mcp is for new MCP requests. It also clarifies when to use subscribe/cancel and how credential/payment edge cases should be handled.

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 behavioral context: it is a paid operation ('pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago'), data is not confidential ('não é dado sigiloso'), and it invokes LGPD data controller responsibilities. These details go beyond the annotations and help the agent understand cost and privacy 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 three sentences long and front-loads the core purpose. However, the second and third sentences include operational and legal details (hosting, payment, LGPD) that, while relevant, could be streamlined. It is not overly verbose, but it is not a model of tightness.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no description of the certificate's purpose or how to obtain valid inputs, the description leaves many operational questions unanswered. It explains the data source and compliance, but not the expected behavior, return structure, or common use cases, making it insufficient for a developer to integrate confidently.

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%. The description provides zero information about the 9 parameters (e.g., cep_contribuinte, cpf_solicitante) or how to fill them correctly. Since the schema offers no descriptions and the tool description ignores parameter semantics entirely, the agent has no way to know the meaning or format of the inputs.

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 tool as a query (consulta) for the 'Certidão de Não-Inscrição' from Prefeitura SP Osasco, with an explicit scope (official source). It distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace by naming a concrete, specific resource. However, it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, and the nature of the certificate could be clearer.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites (beyond implying prepaid credit). It mentions it is hosted by the platform and requires no platform credentials, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, and no mention of 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 include idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it includes conversation array for reproduction, which is about the input, not the behavior. It doesn't disclose what happens after submission (e.g., where it goes, if it creates a ticket). The annotations already cover safety, so the description does not contradict them. Description adds minimal extra behavioral context, but not lacking.

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: two sentences with clear purpose and a key instruction. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Report' and resource 'bug'. 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?

Given the tool is for reporting bugs/feedback, the description covers the purpose and one key input (conversation). But with no output schema, no details on what happens after submission, and three parameters with zero schema coverage, the description is not fully complete. However, the tool is simple enough that a minimal description might suffice. It does not explain 'context' parameter, and no guidance on when to use conversation vs context. So slightly above minimal but not fully 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. The description mentions 'conversation array' but does not explain the 'context' field or the 'message' field's exact content or format. It adds no detail on what 'conversation' should look like (just says 'recent messages' but no structure). With three parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient for parameter guidance.

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: reporting bugs, missing features, or feedback, with a specific instruction to include conversation context. It is distinct from sibling tools that handle authentication, marketplace, and version info. However, it doesn't explicitly name any sibling tools to differentiate, but the purpose is 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 indicates 'when to use' implicitly: when the user reports a bug, feedback, etc. It instructs to include conversation array for reproduction, giving a usage hint. But it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or what alternatives exist (e.g., for general questions, use something else). This is a minimal but adequate 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 establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the versions are 'current' but does not disclose output format, whether it performs any platform access, or other behavioral details. No contradiction exists.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the full purpose without waste. 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 parameterless, read-only version-reporting tool with strong annotations, the description is complete enough. It identifies exactly what information is shown; no output schema is present, but the described return content is straightforwardly usable.

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 input schema accurately reflects that with an empty object. There is no parameter burden for the description to carry, which matches the baseline for parameterless 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, marketplace, and 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?

The intended usage is implied rather than explicit: call the tool when version information is needed. However, no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, so the agent must infer context.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe and idempotent nature is covered. The description adds context about the content of the state (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools) but doesn't disclose any additional behaviors such as performance, caching, or potential delays. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 efficiently lists the key elements. No fluff, front-loaded with the main action, and every phrase adds value.

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 with no parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the expected return content sufficiently. It could mention whether the state is real-time or cached, or if it requires prior authentication, but given the low complexity and good annotations, this is complete enough.

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 semantic burden. The description explains what the tool returns, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool. This is above the baseline because the description helps the agent understand what to expect even without 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 what the tool does: it returns the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This differentiates it from sibling tools 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 when to use it: when you need an overview of the toolkit state. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the clear scope makes the usage context apparent. Sibling names like authenticate and connect suggest alternative actions, but no explicit when-not guidance is provided.

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