Receita Federal SICALC: Gerar DARF

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

The description discloses behavioral traits such as permanent vs. session-only login modes and the fact that calling with no args returns a link. Annotations already mark it as idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds context without contradiction, explaining the two operational modes.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then provides actionable instructions. No fluff exists, though it could be slightly restructured into shorter sentences for easier scanning.

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 an authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to use it in three different ways, and the best practice. It lacks explicit mention of possible side effects or return formats, but these are implicitly covered by the annotations and the tool's simple nature.

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 parameter descriptions), so the description fully compensates by explaining that the 'token' parameter expects a JWT string for session login, and that omitting the parameter yields a login link. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema 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 states the tool's purpose: authenticate the user to the MCP server via browser login and token retrieval. It specifically mentions being for IDE agents, which differentiates from general-purpose tools, but does not explicitly contrast with 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?

The description provides explicit usage instructions: adding a header via config for permanent access, pasting a token for session-only access, or calling with no arguments to get a login link. It even recommends the best practice (config header). However, it does not mention when NOT to use this tool or compare it to alternative 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 already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about conditional output (authenticated:true with empty pending vs connect_url when credentials are missing), which provides useful behavioral detail beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and no redundancy. Every sentence contributes meaningful detail about behavior and return values.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary states (all connected vs missing credentials) and the relevant URLs. A minor gap is that partial connectivity is not explicitly addressed, but the scenarios imply it, so it's nearly 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema imposes no burden. The description correctly does not need to explain parameters, and the absence of any param details is appropriate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 siblings like authenticate. It specifies the output in both connected and missing-credential scenarios, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for checking connection status but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like authenticate or state when not to use. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so the guidance remains implied rather than 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?

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds substantial detail: invoke runs one-off without adding to toolkit, returns connect/checkout links on missing auth/payment, install is permanent, and all mutations need owner/admin. 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 a single dense paragraph but well-organized with a clear flow from search to describe to invoke, and then covers install vs invoke. It could benefit from bullet points or section breaks for readability, but every sentence adds value and it's appropriately sized for a complex multi-action 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?

Covers the full lifecycle: discovery, execution, installation, billing (subscribe/cancel), prompt library, and edge cases (connect link, checkout). No output schema exists, but the description explains return behavior implicitly (e.g., invoke returns connect link). For 23 params and no output schema, this is remarkably 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the primary 'action' values and the related params (mcp_id, tool_id, arguments) via the flow. However, it doesn't document many params like limit, query, prompt_* fields, which remain ambiguous. It adds meaning for the main action but lacks exhaustive param mapping.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states this is the official mcp.ai marketplace, covering a catalog of MCPs and the way to run them. It lists the core flow (search, describe, invoke) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like toolkit_info or report_bug by emphasizing its role as the discovery/execution hub.

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: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', explains when search/describe fit, notes that invoke works even without install, and details auth/payment retry logic. It also clarifies that writes require owner/admin.

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 that the tool is hosted by the platform, requires payment via prepaid credits, and that data is not confidential (LGPD compliance). These behavioral traits are not covered by the annotations, so the description adds value in transparency.

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 relatively short but contains repetitive legal and payment disclaimers that could be consolidated. It mixes core functionality with operational details, making it less focused.

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 does not explain what the tool returns (output), nor does it elaborate on the meaning of the 10 input parameters. Given the schema complexity, the description is far from 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?

The schema lists 10 parameters with no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain any of them (cpf, cnpj, quota, codigo, etc.). The description adds no meaning to the parameters, leaving them completely unexplained.

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 it 'Gerar DARF' (generate DARF) and 'consulta em fonte oficial' (query in official source), which gives a general idea but is somewhat ambiguous about the core function. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools or specify the exact resource being acted upon.

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. It focuses on payment and legal disclaimers rather than usage scenarios or prerequisites.

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 idempotent, non-destructive, and non-read-only behavior. The description adds context that the conversation parameter should contain recent messages for reproduction, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return behavior. This is modest added value 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds only essential usage guidance. No filler, and every phrase contributes meaning.

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?

This is a simple tool with no output schema and safety-related annotations. The description covers the core purpose and specifies the key input (conversation) needed for reproduction. The main gaps are the unexplained 'context' parameter and the array-vs-string ambiguity, but overall the information is largely sufficient for a tool of this 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'conversation' holds recent messages for reproduction and implies 'message' is the bug/feedback text, but 'context' remains unexplained. It also introduces ambiguity by calling 'conversation' an array while the schema types it as string.

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 ('Report') and identifies clear resources ('a bug, missing feature, or send feedback'). This clearly distinguishes it from unrelated sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, and 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 states the intended use case ('Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback') and provides guidance to include the conversation array for reproduction. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, making 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so agents know this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no additional behavioral details (e.g., it is instant, no side effects), but does not contradict annotations. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and information, and contains zero wasted words. It is an exemplary concise description.

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 trivial complexity (no parameters, no output schema needed), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know. It is complete for a version-checking tool with no side effects and no parameters.

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 parameter-specific information. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameters because there are none. The schema coverage baseline is 4 for 0 params, and the description is clear about what it shows.

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: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It uses a specific verb ('Show') and defines the resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), which is distinct from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace'.

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 semantics of the tool are simple and self-evident; there is no need for extensive guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, but given the unique purpose, this is acceptable. The context implies it is used to check versions, which is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about the response contents (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog counts), which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies what the agent can expect. No 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 sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and lists key details without wasting words. 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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It lists the major categories of information, making it complete for the expected use case.

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 schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific info (none needed), but it does describe the return value, which is helpful.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns the current toolkit state, enumerating specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate or 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 implies appropriate use cases (checking toolkit status/connectivity) without explicitly stating when not to use or naming alternatives. The sibling tools are clearly different in function, so context is sufficient, but no explicit exclusion is given.

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