Registro Civil: Validar Certidão Eletrônica

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

The description supplements the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only) by explaining the side-effect-free nature of the auth flow and the different ways tokens are used. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds value by clarifying the permanent vs session distinction.

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 moderately verbose but each sentence contributes essential information about the two login flows and the header configuration. It's front-loaded with the purpose and then expands on usage, achieving good structure without unnecessary fluff.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: how to trigger the login link, how to use a token, and the permanent header setup. It's comprehensive enough for an IDE agent to invoke 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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that the 'token' parameter expects a JWT for session-only login. It clarifies the optional nature and that omitting it yields a link, but could be more explicit about token format or validation.

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 users via browser login and obtain an access token. It explicitly describes two modes (permanent header vs session-only token) and how to invoke each, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'connect' by its focus on authentication rather than connection setup.

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 when-to-use guidance for IDE agents, with clear instructions for both the recommended permanent configuration (adding header to server config) and the session-only approach (passing token). It also specifies that calling with no args returns the login link, giving complete 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?

With readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, annotations already indicate safe, idempotent read. The description adds value by explaining the two distinct outcomes (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs), which is useful behavioral detail not in 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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise without wasted words, though it could be tightened slightly. The information is organized with the main outcome first, then the conditional case.

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 no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the two possible states of the response, which is sufficient for the agent to understand expected behavior. It doesn't over-explain, and given the sibling 'authenticate', it provides enough context.

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?

Since there are zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, but it could have mentioned that no inputs are required. However, no parameter info is needed, so this 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, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' (which likely performs authentication) and 'marketplace'. It specifies the behavior of returning authenticated:true and empty pending[] when all providers are connected, making the purpose precise.

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: to check connection status or retrieve connect URLs when credentials are missing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like 'authenticate' or caution against using it for actions. It provides context on what to expect in different states, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it.

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 discloses critical behaviors: invoke runs tools even when not installed, returns a connect link for missing credentials, returns a checkout/top-up link for empty wallets, and requires workspace owner/admin for writes. It also explains installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags. 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 virtually every sentence adds distinct information (flows, edge cases, permissions, prompt library). It could be improved with bullet points or sections, but for a multi-action tool it remains efficient and front-loaded with the most important facts.

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 (23 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core flow and key edge cases well. However, it omits the 'resume' action entirely, does not specify return values or parameter usage for every action, and leaves some prompts parameters unexplained. It is a solid but incomplete description 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the core action concepts and mentions tool_id and arguments in the invoke flow, but it does not describe most of the 23 parameters (e.g., limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, prompt_* fields). An agent would struggle to know exactly which parameters to set for actions like subscribe, resume, or publish_prompt.

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 this tool is the official mcp.ai marketplace: a catalog of MCPs/tools and a way to run them. It enumerates a concrete set of actions (search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, prompt library) that distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and report_bug by explicitly naming its own scope.

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 usage guidance is present: the core flow is laid out as search → describe → invoke, and the description contrasts invoke vs install ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'). It also tells when to use list_tools, report_bug, and request_mcp, making alternatives 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds valuable context: it explains that the tool is hosted by the platform without platform credentials, that it costs prepaid credit, and that the data is not confidential (public information). It also mentions LGPD compliance and the client's role as data controller, which is important legal 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 concise paragraph but covers all essential information: purpose, official source, hosting, payment, data sensitivity, and legal compliance. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or filler content.

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 relatively simple with only one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the operational context (pay-per-use, official source) and legal aspects (LGPD), which is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke. It lacks details about the return value format, but as the output schema is absent, some description of expected output would be helpful, yet not critical given the 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%, meaning the schema provides no description for the single parameter `codigo_certidao`. The description, however, implicitly indicates the parameter is the certificate code needed for validationable. While it doesn't explicitly describe the format or where to find it, it does hint at the purpose. For a single parameter with no schema documentation, the description compensates reasonably, but it could be more explicit about the exact input 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 the tool's purpose: to validate an electronic birth certificate (`Validar Certidão Eletrônica`) using an official source. It distinguishes from generic sibling tools (e.g., authenticate, marketplace) by specifying the domain (Registro Civil) and the action (validation). It could be more specific about the exact output (valid/invalid confirmation) but the verb+resource is clear.

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 for when to use the tool: it is for querying official Brazilian sources, similar to what citizens access, and not for sensitive data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given the sibling list (generic platform tools), the usage is well-scoped. It also mentions payment requirements (prepaid credit) which is a key usage condition.

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 does not disclose specific side effects (e.g., creating a ticket, sending an email) beyond the act of reporting. The annotations provide idempotentHint true, but the description adds no further behavioral detail.

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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences with no unnecessary words. It communicates both purpose and usage efficiently.

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, the description is complete enough: it states what the tool does and hints at the input requirements. It does not describe output or failure modes, but these are not critical for such a straightforward action.

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 explains the 'conversation' parameter by mentioning the conversation array, but does not clarify 'message' or 'context'. Since the schema lacks descriptions, the description only partially compensates.

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: reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate and connect by specifying 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 gives explicit guidance to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is a clear usage instruction. It implicitly conveys when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it.

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. The description adds that it returns platform and adapter versions, which is useful context beyond the annotations. 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?

Single sentence, perfectly concise and front-loaded. No fluff.

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 version-checking tool with no parameters and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. The output schema is absent, but the description clarifies what it shows (version). It could mention that it's non-interactive or doesn't require auth, but not 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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters, baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters because there are 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?

Description clearly states the tool shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb 'show' and resource 'version', which distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, connect, etc.

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 the environment version, which is clear given the sibling tools have different purposes. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but context makes that obvious.

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 mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by detailing exactly what state components are returned, going beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction with the safe, non-destructive behavior implied.

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 lists the main components without any fluff, effectively front-loading the primary purpose and supporting 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?

For a read-only info tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main return fields. It could mention that the state reflects live connection status or that it may make network calls, but it's already adequate for its scope.

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 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description doesn't need to explain parameter behavior. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter ambiguity exists.

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 components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts). This specific verb+resource combination uniquely distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate or 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 implies when to use this tool by listing the state information it provides, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. It gives clear context without exclusions.

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