SEFAZ AC: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it explains that the token can be stored permanently via config (non-expiring) or used temporarily for a session, and that calling with no args returns a link. It does not describe the exact response format or side effects, but given the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true), the description adds meaningful context 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 informative but somewhat run-on and fragmented (e.g., the first sentence is a fragment). It could be more concise and better structured, but every sentence does convey needed information, so it is not excessively verbose.

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 authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: how to log in, the two modes (permanent vs session), and the parameter semantics. It does not explain return values, but the lack of an output schema makes that less important. It is complete enough for an 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?

The input schema only defines 'token' as a string with no description. The description compensates by clarifying that the token is a JWT copied from the browser, and that the parameter is only needed when doing a session-only login. It also explains the no-args behavior to get a link, which resolves the optionality.

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: authenticating to the MCP.AI server for IDE agents. It explains the login process (log in in the browser, copy token) and distinguishes two methods (config header vs session token). However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'connect', leaving slight ambiguity about when to prefer one over the other.

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 scenarios: adding the token to server config for a permanent connection, or passing it as a parameter for session-only login, or calling with no args to get a login link. This is clear context, though it does not mention any 'when not to use' cases or alternatives beyond the tool itself.

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 and idempotent hints. The description adds transparency about the output conditions (authenticated vs. missing credentials) but does not disclose additional behaviors beyond that. It is consistent with 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 two sentences, directly stating the output and the two possible scenarios. It is concise, well-structured, and contains no redundant 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?

The description fully explains the tool's behavior for both possible states (all providers connected or credentials missing). It covers the essential output aspects without unnecessary detail, making it complete for a tool with no parameters and a simple output.

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 schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain any parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since no additional parameter information is required.

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 its purpose: returning connection status and URLs. It specifies the exact output for both connected and missing-credential scenarios, distinguishing it from sibling tools 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies usage for checking connection status, but lacks direct guidance such as 'use this to verify provider connectivity' or 'use authenticate to set credentials.'

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 reveals critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: one-off execution without adding to toolkit, return of connect/checkout links requiring retry, permission requirements for writes, and the distinction between installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. This adds substantial contextual detail that annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) do not capture.

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 well-structured, using 'Core flow:', 'KEY:', and explicit action lists to organize information. Every sentence delivers actionable content without redundancy, though its length reflects the tool's complexity (14 actions, 23 params). It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and selection guidance.

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 is exceptionally complete for a tool of this complexity: it covers the full lifecycle (search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe), permission requirements, edge cases (connect/checkout links), the prompt library subsystem, and distinction between one-off and permanent usage. With no output schema, it also explains the expected results for each action—information an agent needs to succeed.

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 compensates by explaining the action parameter and its enum values implicitly, and clarifies key parameters like query, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt_* parameters. However, not all 23 parameters receive individual attention (e.g., limit, message, report_context), though their roles are inferable from context. The description adds significant meaning to the main parameters driving the flow.

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 explains its dual role as a catalog and execution engine. It specifies the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and enumerates all supported actions, distinguishing them from sibling tools by naming specific capabilities like prompt library and billing management.

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?

Extensive usage guidance is provided: the description explicitly contrasts invoke vs install, explains when to use search/describe vs list_tools, and notes that writes require workspace owner/admin. It also gives conditional workflows (e.g., retry after connect/checkout link) and clarifies that invoke works even without installation.

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: false', 'destructiveHint: false', and 'idempotentHint: true', covering the safety profile. The description adds the request to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is useful behavioral context, but does not disclose any further side effects. This is adequate but does not go beyond the annotations significantly.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The tool is simple with no output schema, and annotations provide safety context. However, the description does not cover all parameter semantics, especially the required 'message' field. It is adequate for a low-complexity tool but leaves gaps in usage instructions, making it slightly incomplete.

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 only explains the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'), but does not clarify the required 'message' parameter or the optional 'context' parameter. This is insufficient for an agent to understand what to provide in each field.

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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is specific (verb+resource) and effectively distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools 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 description implies when to use (when reporting issues or feedback) and instructs to include the conversation array, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or discuss alternatives. Since sibling tools are unrelated and no direct alternatives exist, the absence of exclusions is not critical, but explicit guidance would improve the score.

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, idempotentHint), the description adds behavioral traits such as 'sem credenciais da plataforma', payment via prepaid credit, and LGPD compliance responsibilities. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context about authentication and cost.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and efficiently conveys hosting, payment, and legal notes without excessive verbosity. It maintains a clear structure.

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 has no output schema and the description does not mention return values, error handling, or the required parameter relationship (CPF vs CNPJ). Despite annotations, the description leaves critical details unaddressed for an 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters at all. While 'cpf' and 'cnpj' are recognizable Brazilian identifiers, the description does not clarify that at least one is needed or what happens if both are provided, leaving ambiguity for a 0-required-params schema.

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 'SEFAZ AC: Certidão Negativa de Débitos, consulta em fonte oficial', identifying the specific resource and operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are unrelated (authenticate, marketplace, etc.), and the verb 'consultar' reinforces its query nature.

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: hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, is paid via prepaid credits, and accesses non-confidential official data. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations provide, but it also does not contradict 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?

A single sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose with no filler words or redundant information. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 version-check tool, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent exactly what information will be shown, and no output schema is necessary for this simple informational 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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is complete, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed.

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 a clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, 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 context implies this should be used when version information is needed, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus sibling tools such as toolkit_info. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact informational payload returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts), which helps the agent set expectations without misstating any behavioral traits.

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 packs all relevant information without filler. Every phrase contributes meaning: what it returns, and the specific items included in the result.

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 takes no input and has no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: it provides a summary of the return value (MCPs, connection state, accounts, catalog tool count). No deeper behavior or side-effect detail is necessary for a simple read-only info 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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description compensates by explaining what the call returns, which is the only meaningful semantic the agent needs. Baseline for no-parameter tools 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 a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the exact components included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like connect, 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 clearly implies this tool is for inspecting the current toolkit and account status, which is distinct from sibling tools' actions. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over action-oriented siblings.

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