Procfy

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

Describes what the tool does (log in) and the two authentication flows. Annotations indicate non-read-only (modifies state), non-destructive, and idempotent. Description aligns but could mention behavior if already authenticated. 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 informative and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. While it is slightly lengthy, every sentence contributes essential information, so it 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 simple structure (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers the authentication workflow for both permanent and session-based methods, leaving no gaps for an agent to misunderstand.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 0%, the description explains the sole parameter 'token' in detail: it is a JWT to paste after the user logs in. This adds significant value 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?

Clearly states that the tool authenticates for MCP.AI IDE agents, distinguishing between permanent config and session-only token methods. The verb ('authenticate') and resource are explicit, and it differs from sibling tools like '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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use each method (permanent config vs session token) and how to invoke the tool: with token for session login or without args to get a link. Also mentions best practice for permanent connection.

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, idempotentHint), the description adds behavioral context about response contents in different connection states, such as authenticated:true vs connect_url.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and provide actionable scenarios with 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?

Adequately covers two main scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials) given the tool’s simplicity, but could mention potential error cases or partial connection.

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 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description need not add parameter info; baseline 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 returns connection status and URLs, distinguishing it from the sibling 'authenticate' tool which performs authentication.

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 and provides scenario details, but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use.

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?

Despite annotations providing a basic safety profile, the description adds substantial behavioral context: how invoke works without installation, returns connect/checkout links for credentials or payment, and the effect of install. 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 long and covers many aspects, but is well-structured with clear sections (core flow, key notes). However, it could be more concise; some sentences are redundant or overly detailed.

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 and lack of output schema, the description provides a thorough overview of its purpose, workflow, and key behaviors. It covers all major actions and edge cases (credentials, payment). Missing only detailed parameter semantics, which is a notable 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 13 parameters, the description must compensate but only mentions a few key parameters (action, query, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments) without detailing their format, constraints, or examples. Parameters like 'immediate', 'tier_slug', 'conversation', etc., are not explained, leaving significant gaps.

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 catalog, and distinguishes it from siblings by positioning it as the primary entry point for discovering and running MCPs. It explicitly says 'use THIS tool FIRST' and describes its role as a gateway to other capabilities.

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 guidance on when to use this tool (before external registries) and how to follow the core flow (search → describe → invoke). Differentiates between invoke (one-off) and install (permanent) and mentions workspace owner/admin requirements for writes. Gives clear alternatives for different actions.

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 indicates creation (mutation), consistent with annotations. However, it lacks disclosure of side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. The annotations provide minimal additional context (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden but does not go beyond the obvious.

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: first states the purpose, second explains the key parameter and points to external docs. No fluff, front-loaded, efficient.

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 the parameter explanation, the description does not cover the return value, error handling, or the role of the 'account' parameter. For a creation tool with no output schema, this leaves agent uncertain about outcomes. External docs help but are not integrated.

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 no descriptions for the two parameters (coverage 0%). The description adds meaning by detailing the 'data' string's expected JSON fields (type, amount, date, etc.), which is valuable. However, it does not explain the optional 'account' parameter, leaving a gap.

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 creates a transaction in Procfy, using the verb 'Cria' (creates). It distinguishes from sibling tools like procfy_get_transaction (read) and procfy_list_transactions (list).

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 context by mentioning the 'data' parameter and linking to API docs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions like required authentication or when not to use.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds value by mentioning balance inclusion and bulk support via bank_account_ids, which are key behavioral details 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?

Two concise sentences: first states main purpose, second adds bulk capability. No redundant information, 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?

With three parameters, no output schema, and limited description of return values, the description is adequate but not thorough. It covers purpose and bulk but lacks parameter descriptions and response details.

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% with no property descriptions. Description only explains bank_account_ids for bulk support, leaving 'account' and 'bank_account_id' unexplained. This is insufficient for agents to understand all 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?

Description clearly states the tool details a bank account including balance by id, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bank_accounts. The verb 'Detalha' (details) and resource 'conta bancária' are specific.

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 when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The intended usage is implied from the purpose, but alternatives like list_bank_accounts are not mentioned.

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, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral details: batch processing with retry/backoff and per-ID error handling. This goes well beyond what annotations provide, fully disclosing the tool's behavior.

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 in Portuguese that efficiently conveys all key information: purpose, parameters, limits, and behavioral traits. There is no redundant or extraneous text. It is front-loaded with the action and then specifies 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?

The description lacks coverage for the account parameter and does not clarify what exactly is returned (e.g., transaction details). With no output schema, the omission of return value semantics is a gap. However, the tool is relatively simple and the batch behavior is well-documented, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 has 3 parameters (account, transaction_id, transaction_ids) with 0% description coverage. The description explains the use of transaction_id (single) and transaction_ids (list, max 50), but omits the account parameter entirely. Given the low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves a gap, earning a 3.

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 detail one or more transactions by ID. It specifies both single and batch modes, with explicit limits (max 50) and behavioral details (retry/backoff, per-id errors). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like procfy_list_transactions, which lists without ID.

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 guides usage by specifying two distinct invocation modes (single ID vs batch list) and the maximum batch size. While it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternatives, the context from sibling tools (e.g., procfy_list_transactions) makes the use case clear. A score of 4 reflects that it provides practical guidance without explicit exclusion language.

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 description adds little about safety. It mentions return fields but omits behavior of the optional 'account' parameter (e.g., filtering).

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 immediately states the action and resources. However, it omits the parameter explanation, reducing its effectiveness without being wasteful.

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 list tool with one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description partially covers purpose and return fields but lacks completeness on parameter usage and any pagination or filtering details.

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 optional 'account' parameter has zero description coverage in the text. The description does not explain its purpose, possible values, or effect, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use it.

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 lists Procfy connections (accounts) linked to the install, specifying the return fields (id, label). It differentiates from sibling tools like procfy_list_bank_accounts or procfy_list_transactions by targeting a different resource.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this over other list tools among siblings.

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 and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds 'paginado' (paginated), a behavioral detail not in annotations. But it omits other traits like auth needs or response structure. Value added is minimal.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose. However, it could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., two sentences) but is appropriately brief for a simple listing 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 4 parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter meanings, pagination behavior (e.g., default page size), and response format. Essential 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions), and the tool description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (page, items, account, filters). The only hint is 'paginado' implying page/items. 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 states 'Lists Procfy bank accounts' which is a clear verb-resource pair. It also mentions pagination, adding context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'procfy_list_accounts', which might list different account types.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., procfy_list_accounts, procfy_list_transactions). It lacks conditions or exclusions, providing no help for tool 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?

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent. Description adds 'paginated', which is useful but does not elaborate on pagination behavior or other aspects (e.g., auth requirements, result limits).

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?

Very concise, with purpose front-loaded in two sentences. No redundant information, but lacks structure for readability (e.g., bullet points).

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover return format, pagination details, or parameter interactions.

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 description must compensate. Only mentions pagination, leaving 'account' and 'filters' unexplained; 'page' and 'items' are only implied as pagination 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?

Clearly states it lists categories (chart of accounts) from Procfy and mentions pagination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like procfy_list_accounts or procfy_list_bank_accounts.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not explain prerequisites or context for using filters/account parameters.

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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavior of pagination, but does not elaborate on pagination details such as default page size, max items, or ordering.

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 extremely concise, delivering the core purpose and note on pagination in two short phrases. It front-loads the main action. However, it could benefit from a more structured format.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter usage, response format, or any constraints. Given the relatively simple tool, it still falls short of what an agent needs to invoke it 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%; none of the four parameters (page, items, account, filters) are explained in the description. The mention of 'Paginado' hints at pagination but does not formally define the parameters. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct calls.

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 lists contacts (customers/suppliers) from Procfy and is paginated. The verb 'list' and resource 'contacts' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling listing tools like procfy_list_accounts or procfy_list_transactions.

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. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, filtering scope, or exclusions.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the pagination trait ('Paginado'), which is useful. However, no other behavioral details (e.g., authorization, rate limits) are disclosed.

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 very brief (two phrases). While concise, it omits critical information about parameters and behavior, making it somewhat undersized for the tool's complexity.

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 4 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description lacks completeness. It fails to explain return values, parameter usage, or how this differs from similar tools.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain any of the four parameters (page, items, account, filters). The word 'paginado' only hints at pagination but does not clarify purpose or format.

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 'List cost centers of Procfy' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (e.g., procfy_list_accounts) by naming the exact resource.

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 vs. alternatives. There are many sibling list tools, but the description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination with page/items, max 50 per page, and the ability to filter via JSON. 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 two sentences, starts with the core purpose, includes key details (pagination, filters), and contains no redundant or extraneous information.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers purpose and pagination but lacks specifics on filter structure (e.g., date format, supported keys) and response format. It is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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 description partially compensates for 0% schema coverage by explaining the purpose of 'page', 'items', and 'filters' (JSON for date, account, category filtering). However, the 'account' parameter is not mentioned, leaving its semantics unclear. The description adds value but not fully comprehensive.

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 lists transactions with specific types (receita/despesa/transferência/folha/imposto) from Procfy, using verbs 'Lista' and 'paginado'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like procfy_create_transaction and procfy_get_transaction.

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 pagination limits (max 50/página) and suggests using filters for specific criteria, giving implicit context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like procfy_get_transaction for a single item.

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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds only that the operation is paginated. This is minimal additional behavioral context; no mention of response structure, limits, or other behaviors.

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 very short (two brief sentences), which is concise but at the expense of completeness. It contains no unnecessary words but is under-specified.

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 4 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain how to paginate, filter, or what the response contains, making it difficult for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the description provides no explanation of parameters (page, items, account, filters), leaving the agent without guidance on their meaning or usage.

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 lists users of the Procfy account (specific verb and resource) and mentions pagination. There are no other sibling tools for listing users, so it naturally distinguishes itself.

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, no prerequisites, and no context for selecting it among sibling 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 indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, suggesting the operation is non-destructive and repeatable. The description adds context about including conversation for reproduction but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence 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?

For a simple reporting tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and reproduction context but lacks details on what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation, ticket creation). It is adequate 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameter meanings, but it only mentions the conversation array. It does not elaborate on the 'message' or 'context' parameters beyond what the schema shows (name and type).

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 with a specific verb ('Report') and resources ('bug, missing feature, or send feedback'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are mostly related to financial transactions and authentication.

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 context (when reporting issues) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The instruction to include the conversation array is helpful but not a full usage guideline.

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, indicating a safe, deterministic operation. The description adds value by specifying that the version includes both platform and adapter, which is not in annotations. No contradictions.

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 with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and perfectly concise 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 simple version display with no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more specific about the format or structure of the returned version string. It does not fully compensate for the lack of an output schema.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and the schema already covers 100% of parameters (none).

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 shows version information for the MCP platform and adapter. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform authentication, transactions, or other actions.

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 version info is needed), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context of no parameters and sibling tools makes this a straightforward tool, so only a minor gap exists.

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. The description adds value by detailing the specific information returned, which is beyond the annotations. It does not discuss rate limits or auth needs, but for a read-only state tool, that is acceptable.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output without any extraneous information.

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 and no output schema, the description fully informs the agent of what the tool returns and its purpose. It is complete for a simple 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 'returns', the resource 'current toolkit state', and specifies exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from all 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (to check toolkit state) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect'. However, given the unique purpose, no confusion arises.

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