SEFAZ AM: Cadastro de Veículo (Outra UF)

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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive but read/write capability. The description adds behavioral context by revealing that the tool can modify server config (adding Authorization header) and that tokens can be permanent or session-based. It doesn't fully detail side effects but provides useful context.

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 long but each sentence adds value, covering purpose, permanent setup, and session setup. It is front-loaded with the tool's name and context, and avoids fluff, though it could be tightened.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is thorough. It explains the two authentication flows, includes a call example, and addresses the IDE agent use case. No critical information is missing.

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%, so description carries the burden. It explains the token parameter's role ('{token: "<jwt>"}') and the alternative of no args to get a link, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It could be more explicit about token format, but enough is 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: authenticating users to the MCP server via browser login and token. It specifies the resource (access token, server config) and the context (IDE agents), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 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?

Provides explicit instructions for both permanent (config header) and session-only (token paste) usage, and explains the no-argument call for retrieving the login link. It also implies when not to use it (e.g., when already authenticated) and offers clear alternatives.

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 safe read-only nature is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail about conditional outputs: authenticated:true with empty pending[] versus connect_url and per-install URLs.

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 no filler. Each sentence adds useful information about the conditional response shapes.

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 parameterless status tool with strong annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the agent can expect in the two main cases. It does not define 'pending[]' in depth, but the tool is simple enough that this 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 add about parameter meaning. This matches the baseline 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Returns connection status and URLs') and clearly names the resource and output. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by describing a status/URL query rather than an authentication action.

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 clear conditional context for expected outcomes when providers are connected versus when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is strongly implied by the output conditions.

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 are generic, so the description carries the behavioral burden and delivers: invoke works even for non-installed MCPs, may return connect/checkout links, performs one-off execution without bloating the toolkit, and uninstall/subscribe/writes require owner/admin. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.

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: purpose, core flow, key invoke behavior, install distinction, permissions, and prompt-library addendum. It is mostly efficient and front-loaded, though slightly dense and with one awkward Portuguese phrase 'pontualmente' and minor redundancy around installed flags.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers all major workflows and important outcomes like connect/checkout links and shareable prompt links. It still omits behavior for resume, immediate, conversation, and detailed output shapes, leaving some edge actions under-contextualized.

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 compensates for very poor schema coverage by explaining action flows and the roles of mcp_id, tool_id, and prompt-related parameters, but many named parameters remain underspecified. For example, arguments, conversation, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, and request_details have no semantic explanation beyond the raw 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 identifies the marketplace as the catalog of MCPs/tools plus a runtime, and maps all major actions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like connect, toolkit_info, and show_version by explicitly framing capability discovery, one-off invocation, installation, and prompt-library access.

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: prefer invoke for one-off use, install only for permanent toolkit addition, list_tools for currently callable tools, request_mcp when nothing fits. It also states prerequisites such as workspace owner/admin for writes, making alternative selection actionable.

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 only the instruction to include the conversation array, which is more of a usage guideline than a disclosure of behavioral traits. It does not explain side effects (e.g., where the report goes) or clarify any implications of the idempotent hint. With annotations present, the description adds little extra transparency, so a 2 is fair.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with a practical usage instruction. Every word earns its place, making it exemplary in conciseness and 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 is relatively simple (3 params, no output schema), and the description covers the main purpose and one key parameter. However, it omits what to include in 'message' (the actual bug description) and what 'context' is for. Given the schema already marks 'message' as required, the description could have added value by explaining these parameters, but it does not. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 clarify parameter meanings. It mentions the 'conversation array' and that recent messages are needed for reproduction, giving some meaning to the conversation parameter. However, it does not explain 'message' or 'context'—even though message is required. This partial compensation is insufficient for a 3-param tool with no schema descriptions, resulting in a 2.

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 a specific action with a clear resource (bug/feedback). It distinguishes itself from siblings which are unrelated (authenticate, connect, etc.). However, it lacks the precision of the high-calibration example by not specifying any scope or target system, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 implicitly suggests when to use the tool (when reporting issues/feedback) and gives one usage hint: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but siblings are unrelated so differentiation is not critical. The guidance is minimal but not misleading, warranting a 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value by disclosing payment requirements (prepaid credits), the fact that no platform credentials are needed, and the legal/data responsibility (LGPD). This goes beyond the annotations and sets appropriate expectations 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 three concise sentences, directly covering the source, payment model, and data governance. It avoids fluff but includes legal boilerplate that, while informative, could be trimmed. Overall, it is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 has 5 required parameters, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It explains the service context (official source, payment, LGPD) but omits any guidance on parameter usage, expected response format, or operational constraints. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without external information.

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% and the description provides zero information about the five parameters (placa, renavam, dut, uf_origem, chassi). No hints about formats, required combinations, or meanings. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent unable to construct a correct query.

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 it's a query for vehicle registration ('Cadastro de Veículo') from SEFAZ AM for other UFs, using an official source. The verb 'consulta' is specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are generic platform operations (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 querying official Brazilian vehicle data but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives. It mentions it's a paid service with prepaid credits and no platform credentials, which is context but not directive. No exclusions or alternative tool references.

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 tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description confirms the output content but does not add details about the response format or whether the adapter and platform versions are returned separately, which would be useful given there is no output schema.

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 with no repetition or filler. It conveys the entire purpose 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 trivial, read-only, zero-parameter version check, the description is sufficiently complete. The annotations handle safety expectations, and no output schema or parameter details are required.

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 description has no obligation to explain parameter behavior. The empty input schema and 100% schema coverage mean no additional parameter information 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Show') and an exact resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings 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 usage context is implied: use this tool when version information is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention that it is a simple informational check.

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 well covered. The description adds useful detail about what the returned state includes, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether the state is a live snapshot or cached, or any rate-limit/availability considerations.

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 leads with the action and resource, then enumerates the specific data items. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with strong annotations, the description fully enumerates the categories of returned information: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently bounds what an agent should expect.

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 parameter semantics are largely not applicable. Per the calibration baseline, a zero-parameter tool receives a 4; the description appropriately focuses on what the call returns rather than parameter behavior.

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 identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerated content: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This makes it easy for an agent to distinguish this from sibling tools 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 implies usage: call this when you need an overview of the toolkit's installed integrations and their status. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like show_version or marketplade, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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