Registradores (ARISP) Certidão: Download de Certidão Digital

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

Adds significant context beyond annotations: explains how token is used, session vs permanent connection, and that no-args returns a link. Annotations only include idempotentHint=true and no destructive/readOnly hints; description aligns and enriches the behavior. 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?

Every sentence is purposeful: identifies tool, gives browser login instruction, explains config vs session approach, and specifies invocation patterns. No filler or redundancy; front-loaded with the core action.

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 minimal schema and no output schema, the description covers both authentication flows (permanent and session), the no-arg case, and the token input. It leaves no critical ambiguity for an agent to invoke the tool 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 has only one optional token parameter with no description. The description thoroughly explains the token's role, format (JWT), and usage, fully compensating for the 0% schema 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?

Description explicitly states the tool authenticates the user via browser login and token, distinguishing it from siblings like connect or marketplace. It names the resource (access token) and the action (log in), making it highly 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?

Provides clear instructions on two usage modes: adding a config header for permanent access or passing a token for session-only login, plus calling with no args to get a link. It does not explicitly address alternatives among sibling tools, but the usage context is well-defined.

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 behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what happens in each state: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing.

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 with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose, and the second explains the key conditional behavior. Every word contributes useful 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 that there are no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior for a zero-input status endpoint. It covers the two main response modes, though it does not enumerate every possible intermediate state, which is a minor gap.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to explain about inputs. The description instead adds value by explaining the conditional output, which is the appropriate focus for a parameterless 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Returns connection status and URLs') and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like authenticate by describing its status-reporting role. It also explains the two main output states, making its 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 provides clear context: this is a connection-status check that reports whether all providers are connected or if credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the state-dependent behavior makes the intended usage apparent.

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, the description reveals that invoke works without installation, returns connect/checkout links when credentials or payment are missing, and confirms that install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel plus the hidden install behind invoke require owner/admin. This gives the agent a clear model of side effects and prerequisites.

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 but organized around a core flow, key invoke behavior, install-vs-invoke guidance, and the prompt-library sub-system. Every sentence contributes distinct information, though it is a long single block that could be split into sections 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 a 14-action router with no output schema, the description covers discovery, execution, installation, billing, feedback, new-MCP requests, workspace flags, and the prompt library. It does not fully document every action's return shape or all edge-case parameters, but it gives enough context for safe invocation.

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 parameter burden and does well for the main workflow: action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related variables are explained through the action flows. However, several parameters (limit, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, cancel_reason, etc.) are still left to name-based inference, so it is not fully compensating for the coverage 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 identifies the tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace and the way to run MCPs, with a concrete core flow (search → describe → invoke). It also distinguishes the prompt-library sub-feature, so the agent understands this is both a catalog/runner and a prompt repository.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: prefer invoke for occasional use, install only to make an MCP permanent, subscribe/cancel for billing, report_bug for feedback, request_mcp for unmet needs. It also states writes require workspace owner/admin, which is important eligibility guidance.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by noting payment per query, that no platform credentials are needed, and that data is non-confidential from official sources. It also mentions LGPD compliance. However, it lacks detail on failure modes, such as what happens with an invalid order number, or authentication requirements for the registry. This is moderate transparency 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 paragraph of moderate length. It front-loads the core action ('Download de Certidão Digital') but then veers into legal and hosting details. The structure is not organized with bullet points or clear separation of key info. It's acceptable but not optimally concise or front-loaded.

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 (6 parameters, all undocumented), the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter roles, expected inputs, or return values. No output schema is present, but the description also omits mention of what the user receives (e.g., a file, a confirmation). The payment model and data source are helpful, but they don't compensate for the missing operational 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameters. It does not mention any of the six parameters (email, senha, tipo_login, pkcs12_cert, pkcs12_pass, numero_pedido) by name or role. The phrase 'sem credenciais da plataforma' hints that email/senha are not platform credentials, but this is vague and doesn't clarify their purpose. No parameter semantics are provided.

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 verb+resource: 'Download de Certidão Digital' (download digital certificate) and mentions 'consulta em fonte oficial' (query in official source). This clearly conveys the primary functionressed in the tool name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., authenticate, connect) beyond the certificate domain, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 about payment (prepaid credit) and lack of platform credentials but does not offer explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives. It fails to specify scenarios like 'use this to retrieve a certificate after issuance' or exclusions (e.g., do not use for other queries). The guidance is implicit at best.

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 communicate read/idempotency/destructive behavior; the description adds that conversation context is expected so the issue can be reproduced. It does not explain what happens after submission or provide details about side effects, so the disclosure is partial.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 three scalar parameters and no output schema, so the description does not need to be extensive. However, it leaves the meaning of the required message and optional context fields inferable, and misses guidance on the conversation string format, making it only minimally adequate.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema, the description must compensate, but it only discusses the conversation parameter and calls it an "array" while the schema declares it as a string. The required message field and the optional context field are not explained, and the array-vs-string wording could mislead an agent.

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

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

The description clearly identifies report_bug as the tool for submitting bugs, missing-feature requests, and feedback, using a specific verb and resource. It is not tautological and it is clearly distinct from sibling tools, although it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

It gives concrete "when to use" scenarios—bug, missing feature, or feedback—and instructs the agent to include recent conversation messages for reproduction. There is no explicit "when not to use" or alternative naming, but none of the sibling tools appear to overlap with bug reporting.

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 behavior. The description adds value by specifying that both 'platform' and 'adapter' versions are shown, providing more precision without redundant safety disclaimers. No contradictions found.

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, well-structured sentence conveys all necessary information without any fluff. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity—no parameters, no output schema, and minimal side effects—the description fully covers what the tool does. There are no missing details that would impact an agent's ability to use 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 there is nothing to explain. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect.' It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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

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

While no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, the context is clear—use this to display version info. The simplicity of the tool makes extensive guidance unnecessary, and the description implies its usage effectively.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., caching, response time, or required authorization), which is acceptable given the annotations but does not exceed 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 sentence that conveys all necessary information without fluff. Every clause adds value by specifying the exact contents of the returned state.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies what the agent should expect to receive. It is complete and sufficient for decision-making.

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 baseline is 4. The schema is already fully covered (vacuously) and the description adds no parameter-related details, which 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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', enumerating exactly what is included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve different purposes.

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

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

The description implies when to use it (to inspect toolkit state) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Since siblings are clearly different in function, the context is clear and adequate, though not as explicit as it could be.

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