Registradores (ARISP) Certidão: Download de Recibo

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining the permanent vs session-only distinction and the browser login flow. It clarifies that no args returns a link and that a token input establishes a session. This is consistent with idempotentHint=true and does not contradict 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?

The description is three sentences with a clear Best/Or structure. Each sentence earns its place: context and login flow, recommended permanent setup, and session-only alternative. There is no wasted wording.

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 auth tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main invocation modes and outcomes. It could be more explicit about the exact return value format and error cases, but it is largely sufficient.

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 provides only a bare optional 'token' string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by specifying that the token is a JWT to be pasted after user login, and that omitting it returns the login link.

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 that the tool authenticates a user by either returning a browser login link or accepting a pasted JWT token. It distinguishes between permanent config-header authentication and session-only token login. However, it does not explicitly differentiate 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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: add the token to the server config for a permanent non-expiring connection, or paste it for a session-only login. It also explains that calling with no args returns the login link. It does not mention when to use 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 readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description complements this by explaining what the return values look like in different states (authenticated:true vs. connect_url). This adds behavioral context 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value by explaining conditional output. No fluff 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?

For a simple status tool with no parameters and rich annotations, the description fully covers behavior, including edge cases (missing credentials). The absence of an output schema is acceptable given the simple return structure described.

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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details and focuses on return behavior, matching the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb 'Returns' and clearly names the resource: connection status and URLs. It further differentiates from siblings by detailing behavior under different conditions (all connected vs. missing credentials), 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 implies when to use this tool (to check connection status and obtain URLs) and provides conditional context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, though the context makes the use case 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 give only readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, no idempotency, and a non-destructive hint—so the description must disclose the nuance, and it does richly. It reveals the side-effect that invoke 'runs the tool pontualmente (one-off)... without adding the MCP to the toolkit' yet still performs 'the one-off install behind invoke,' and it discloses permission requirements (workspace owner/admin for writes) plus the connect-link and checkout-link external flows.

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 dense wall of text with no bullet points or section breaks, which hurts scannability for a 14-action dispatcher spanning two domains (MCPs and prompt library). However, virtually every sentence earns its place—there is no fluff—and the core invoke-vs-install distinction is front-loaded near the opening. The length is largely justified by the tool's surface area.

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 output schema, minimal annotations, and an enormous parameter set, the description covers an impressive amount: the search→describe→invoke core flow, permission gates, billing/connect retry semantics, and the entire prompt-library sub-domain. The notable gap is the 'resume' action in the enum, which is never explained in the description, and parameter-level detail for most of the 23 properties remains absent.

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% across 23 parameters, so the description carries the entire burden. It thoroughly explains the central action enum in prose, but the 12+ non-action parameters (prompt_vars, prompt_targets, conversation, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, cancel_comment, prompt_body, etc.) receive little to no individual semantic coverage beyond their self-evident names. Compensation is partial, not complete.

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 precise definition—'The official mcp.ai marketplace—the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them'—and then fully enumerates each of the 14 dispatch actions with its role. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate, connect, and report_bug by owning the marketplace-search/invoke/install domain.

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

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

Explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance is pervasive: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' versus 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit,' plus coverage of capability-request phrasing ('find an MCP that does X'). It even names the retry flow after connect/checkout links and states that list_tools shows only currently-callable 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: prepaid credit is consumed, no platform credentials are required, the data is non-confidential and publicly available to citizens, and LGPD data-control responsibilities apply. No contradiction is present.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The later sentences add useful operational and legal context, though there is some minor redundancy between 'consulta em fonte oficial' and 'fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros'.

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 good high-level context about payment, credential model, and data sensitivity, the tool has six undocumented parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain authentication setup, how to obtain or format the PKCS12 certificate, what the receipt download returns, or error behavior, leaving significant gaps for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% with six string parameters, and the description does not explain the meaning of email, senha, tipo_login, pkcs12_cert, pkcs12_pass, or numero_pedido. The phrase 'Download de Recibo' hints that numero_pedido matters, but this is insufficient to compensate for the complete lack of parameter 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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Download de Recibo, consulta em fonte oficial', making the tool's purpose explicit. The phrase 'Registradores (ARISP) Certidão' distinguishes it from generic 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 provides clear usage context: the tool is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, is paid per query with prepaid credit, and queries official Brazilian sources. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for 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 provide idempotentHint=true, which is valuable. The description adds that including a conversation array aids reproduction, which is an extra behavioral hint beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., whether it sends data to a server, any rate limits, or side effects). Since annotations already cover idempotency and read-only (false implies mutation), the description's addition is marginal. With annotations present, score 3 is appropriate for adding some context without 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a clear instruction. It is concise and to the point, with no fluff. It earns high marks but loses a point for not being absolutely minimal; the purpose sentence is slightly dense but 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?

Given there is no output schema and annotations are limited, the description is functional but incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, report ID), nor does it clarify the role of the 'context' parameter. However, for a bug-report tool, this may be acceptable, as the primary action is submission. It is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps in edge-case usage.

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 the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description explicitly mentions 'conversation array' but does not explain the purpose of 'context' or that 'conversation' defaults to '[]'. The schema defines types and defaults, but the description adds only a specific note about conversation. Since coverage is zero but the schema has minimal info, a baseline of 3 is reasonable; the description adds some value for 'conversation' but leaves 'context' 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?

Description states: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This uses a clear verb ('report') and resource ('bug') and expands to include feedback. It is functionally clear but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools beyond the general application context; however, siblings like 'show_version' and 'toolkit_info' are distinct, so it's adequate. Score 4 for clear purpose but not deeply distinguished from all possible feedback channels.

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?

Description implies usage: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' This tells the agent that including conversation context is important, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of others, nor any exclusions (e.g., when not to use). No alternatives are named. It is implied but not explicit, so score 3.

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 annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description does not add any extra behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide. It is consistent with the annotations, but no additional details about side effects, permissions, or rate limits are mentioned.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and directly states the purpose, making it highly 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?

The description clearly states what the tool shows (versions), but it does not specify the output format or details. For a simple version-check tool, this is likely sufficient, though a bit more detail on the returned information could improve completeness. Overall, it is adequately complete for 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no input schema to describe. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters. The description does not need to add parameter details because none exist.

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 function: showing the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and 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 description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks information about scenarios where version information is needed or when other tools might be more appropriate. For a simple version check, some implicit usage might be inferred, but explicit guidance is absent.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying what the returned state includes: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It does not discuss pagination or response format, but with no output schema the itemized list is meaningful.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and a concise enumeration of returned information. Every element contributes meaning, with 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the tool's purpose and the categories of data returned. The annotations fully cover behavioral safety, and no other preconditions or contextual details appear necessary.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly implies that the tool takes no arguments and simply returns the current toolkit state.

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: 'current toolkit state.' It enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts), which distinguishes it from siblings like show_version 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 makes the use context clear: call this tool when you need an overview of installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and exposed catalog tool counts. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the read-only informational purpose is unambiguous given zero parameters and sibling tool names.

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