Receita Federal Simples MEI: Emissão de Guia de Parcelamento

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It adds valuable context: the browser-based flow, the permanent vs session distinction, and that no-args returns a link. This doesn't contradict the idempotency hint (authenticating is a set-once operation). It could add what happens on repeated no-arg calls or invalid-token failure, but for an auth tool the core behavior is well 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 a single dense paragraph with every sentence earning its place: purpose, config mode, session mode, and no-arg behavior are all covered without filler. It's slightly verbose with technical parentheticals (Cursor, JWT), but the density is justified by the need to explain two distinct auth paths.

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 tool (1 optional param, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains invocation for all cases (no args, with token), the permanent vs session behavior, and implies the return for the no-arg call ('to get the link'). Minor gaps: no mention of failure modes (invalid token, expired link) or what a successful token call returns. Overall adequate given the tool's low complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the lone 'token' parameter as a JWT pasted by the user for session-only login, and clarifies that omitting it triggers the link-generation path. This is sufficient semantic context for the single optional parameter, though it could more explicitly state the token's format constraints.

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 specific action ('log in in the browser, copy the access token') targeting the MCP server connection, with two clear delivery modes (permanent config header vs session-only token). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by focusing on the authentication mechanism rather than generic connection or discovery.

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, actionable guidance is provided for each mode: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header' for permanent auth, 'call with { token: "<jwt>" }' for session login, and 'with no args to get the link' for initial setup. It even explains the trade-off (permanent non-expiring vs session-only), giving the agent clear decision criteria for which invocation pattern 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 declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it reveals the response shape (authenticated, pending[], connect_url) and conditional behavior based on credential state. This goes beyond the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds information. No filler or redundancy.

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 present, the description effectively communicates the return values and the conditions that affect them. It fully covers the tool's simple behavior and edge cases (all connected vs. missing credentials), so the description is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke it.

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 fully covers the input surface. The description appropriately focuses on output behavior rather than parameter details, which is the correct baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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-resource pair ('Returns connection status and URLs') and clearly differentiates from siblings like authenticate and toolkit_info. It also describes conditional outcomes, making the tool's 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 explains what happens in two states (all providers connected vs. credentials missing), which implies when a user might find it useful, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like authenticate or toolkit_info. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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 the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description reveals critical behaviors: invoke works even when MCP is not installed and has one-off execution semantics; returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment; requires workspace owner/admin for writes; and flags installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. This is rich, actionable transparency that annotations do not provide.

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

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

The description is long but densely informative, covering the core flow, edge cases (uninstalled MCPs, payment links), permission requirements, and the prompt library. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses every sentence to add value. While it could be split into structured points, the length is justified given 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?

For a tool with 14 actions, 23 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description provides substantial context: the search-describe-invoke workflow, install vs invoke behavior, permission requirements, and prompt operations. However, it omits details on some actions (e.g., resume, list_tools specifics), output structures, and error handling, so it falls short of fully complete for such a complex 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 input schema has 23 parameters with zero descriptions (0% coverage). The description explains high-level concepts (action values like search/describe/invoke) and some parameters implicitly (mcp_id, tool_id, arguments), but many parameters (e.g., immediate, tier_slug, prompt_vars, cancel_reason) are never explained. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent uncertain about parameter formats and meanings.

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 role as the MCP marketplace and prompt library, with specific actions and flow. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like authenticate or report_bug (which also appear as actions within this tool), so the purpose is clear but not sharply distinguished from alternatives.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use invoke vs install ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use... use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'), and explains the core search→describe→invoke flow. It also mentions billing via subscribe/cancel and when to request a new MCP. However, it doesn't compare this tool to sibling tools like connect or authenticate, leaving some ambiguity about when to use those instead.

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. Description adds useful context: no platform credentials needed, prepaid credit payment, non-confidential data, LGPD responsibilities. This goes beyond annotations, so a 4 is warranted.

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 with several clauses, mixing business details (payment, LGPD) with functional intent. It's not overly long but could be more structured. It front-loads the purpose but then goes into payment and legalities, which might not be the most relevant for invocation.

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, how parameters are used, or any pagination/error behavior. It mentions it's a consultation, but not what the output looks like. Given no output schema substrates, this is incomplete. Also, parameters are not explained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (cnpj, cpf, mes_ano, codigo_acesso) or their purpose. The description only says it consults official sources but doesn't clarify what each parameter is for, leaving the agent to guess. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare names.

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) to official Receita Federal sources for Simples MEI, and mentions emitting a parcelamento guide. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from specific sibling tools (though the sibling list is generic). The purpose is specific but could be sharper about the exact output.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, or what situations it is appropriate for. It mentions payment and data privacy, but doesn't provide selection criteria or exclusions. The tool appears unique among siblings, but still no usage 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=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the instruction to include conversation data for reproduction but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects or rate limits. 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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives a key usage instruction. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and primary usage. However, it omits explanation of the 'context' parameter and does not describe what happens after submission, leaving slight gaps despite the tool's simplicity.

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 'conversation' parameter (include recent messages) and implies 'message' holds the report text, but the 'context' parameter is not mentioned. Partial compensation for the lack of schema documentation.

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' with clear resources ('bug, missing feature, or feedback'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate and show_version by stating its unique purpose.

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

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

Provides clear context for when to use the tool (reporting issues or feedback) and instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, though siblings are unrelated.

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 the operation as read-only and idempotent, which the description aligns with by stating 'show.' While the description doesn't add extra details like output format, the behavior is predictable, and the annotations cover safety. It adds no contradictions and meets the baseline for a non-destructive operation.

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 conveys all necessary information without fluff. Every word earns its place, and the structure is perfectly minimal.

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 no parameters and a simple output, this description is complete. The lack of an output schema is not an issue because the purpose is straightforward, and the annotations cover the behavioral context. No additional information is needed.

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, there's no room for confusion. The baseline of 4 applies here since there are no parameters to document, and the description correctly indicates the tool takes no input.

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 ('show') and clearly identifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing solely on version information, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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

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

The description implies the tool is for checking versions but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide context about when it's appropriate. However, for a simple version lookup tool, the guidance is adequate, as no exclusions or prerequisite conditions are needed.

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 meaningful context about exactly what state is returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts), going beyond the 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists the returned details. Every clause adds information, 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool with strong annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool does and what information it returns. No output schema exists, but the enumeration of returned fields compensates adequately.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially), so there is no parameter burden on the description. The description focuses on return content instead, which is appropriate for a no-argument info tool.

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 ('Returns') and names a concrete resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates its contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like show_version 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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that show_version might be used for version info, or that marketplace connects to MCPs, so an agent has no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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