SEFAZ BA: Emitir guia de IPVA

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: config-based auth is permanent, pasting a token is session-only, and no args returns a login link. It doesn't describe response details or side effects, but this is adequate for an auth tool.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then structured with 'Best:' and 'Or:' to separate permanent vs session-only flows. It is slightly dense, but every sentence 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?

For a single-optional-parameter auth tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, invocation modes, token semantics, and no-args behavior. It doesn't specify return values or error handling, but those are not critical for this simple 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 schema only defines an optional string 'token' with no description. The tool description compensates fully by explaining that the token is a JWT for session-only login, that passing it authenticates the session, 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 the tool authenticates to MCP.AI for IDE agents, with explicit actions: log in via browser, copy token, call with token or no args. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'connect', but the purpose is 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 gives explicit usage modes: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header... for a permanent, non-expiring connection' versus 'paste it here for a session-only login'. It also tells the agent when to call with a token and when to call with no args to get the link.

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 doesn't need to repeat that. The description adds useful behavioral details: it explains the difference between full connection (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) and missing credentials (connect_url, per-install URLs). This goes beyond annotations and helps set expectations.

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, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second elaborates on conditions and output details. No waste, every sentence 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 that there are no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is relatively complete for a status tool. It explains the two states and gives key fields. It could mention if there are any prerequisites, but for a read-only status check with no parameters, this is 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?

Since there are 0 parameters, the schema description coverage is 100% by default, and the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the tool returns, but it doesn't need to explain parameters because there are none. It meets the baseline.

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: it returns connection status and URLs. It explains the two states (all connected vs. credentials missing) and mentions the returned data fields. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings beyond implying it's about status, but given the scope is clear, it scores well.

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 connect URLs when credentials are missing. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. There is some guidance via the conditions, but it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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 only generic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds rich context: invoke runs tools even when the MCP is not installed, handles auth/billing via connect/checkout links, and clarifies permission requirements for writes. 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 lengthy but structured with a logical flow (core flow, key distinction, permissions, prompt library). It is front-loaded with the most critical usage pattern and avoids repetition, though its length exceeds typical descriptions; the density of information justifies the length.

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 23 parameters and 14 actions, the description covers major behaviors: the search→describe→invoke flow, auth/billing links, owner/admin requirements, and the prompt library. It does not detail exact return formats for each action, but given the complexity and lack of output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 explains the core parameter 'action' with its enum values and details the roles of mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related params. Not every parameter (e.g., cancel_reason, report_context) is explicitly described, but the overall semantics are conveyed.

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 is the official mcp.ai marketplace, catalogs MCPs and tools, and serves as the way to run them. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by covering capability requests and a prompt library, with a specific verb-resource structure (search, describe, invoke, install).

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 guidance on when to use invoke vs install ('use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use'), contrasts with list_tools, and notes owner/admin requirements for writes. It also explains the flow from search to invoke.

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 define readOnly=false and destructive=false, so no contradiction. The description adds a useful detail about including the conversation array, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects (e.g., confirmation, side effects, rate limits). Given annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate—some added context but limited depth.

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 purpose, followed by a direct instruction. No fluff or repetition—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?

For a simple reporting tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description provides the essential purpose and a key usage hint. However, the lack of parameter explanations for 'message' and 'context' leaves minor gaps, so it isn't perfect.

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 clarifies the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages'), but leaves 'message' and 'context' unexplained. This fails to fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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.' It uses a specific verb ('Report') and distinct resources (bug/feedback), and it is unambiguously different from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, 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 context is clear: users should use this tool when they encounter a bug or have feedback. It also gives a direct instruction ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct.

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 and idempotentHint. The description adds value by disclosing that no platform credentials are needed, it is pay-per-query, and data controller responsibilities (LGPD). This goes beyond the structured fields.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes necessary operational and legal context in just a few sentences. No fluff, but it could be slightly better organized with the param explanation.

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 one-parameter query tool, the description covers purpose, official source, payment model, and data responsibility. It doesn't explain the output format, but given no output schema, this is acceptable. Overall it provides sufficient context for a basic read-only query 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 input schema shows one required parameter 'renavam' with zero schema description (0% coverage). The description does not explain the parameter or its format, so the agent must infer from the name alone. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 specific verb+resource: 'Emitir guia de IPVA' (issue IPVA guide) and clarifies it's from an official source. This distinguishes it from the generic siblings 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 context on when to use (for IPVA consultation) and mentions 'consulta em fonte oficial' but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The platform/hosting and payment details imply usage conditions, but no explicit exclusions are given.

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 adds specifics beyond that: it explicitly names what versions are shown (MCP platform and adapter). This provides useful context without contradicting 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?

A single, efficient sentence that communicates the entire purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the action verb.

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, clear read-only annotations), the description is fully complete. An agent can invoke it with no ambiguity about its function or expected result.

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, which sets a baseline of 4. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description doesn't need to compensate, and it correctly mentions the output scope ('versions') as the sole input-free operation.

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 resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and report_bug by focusing specifically on version information.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, but the tool's simplicity makes its usage obvious: it is the go-to for checking platform/adapter versions. This is implied rather than stated, so it falls short of a 4, but not as low as a 2.

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 cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by specifying that the result is a 'current' snapshot and enumerating the behavioral scope: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool exposure. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint or idempotentHint and adds value beyond those 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the output components economically. Every phrase adds informational value with no 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and the complexity is low, the description is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the result. It fully describes what the operation returns at the level needed for this kind of state-inspection 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, so per the calibration baseline it starts at 4. The description correctly focuses entirely on the return value rather than parameter explanation since there are no inputs to describe.

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'), listing the exact content returned: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version, which would report version info rather than toolkit state.

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 inspecting the toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as show_version or connect. There is no direct exclusionary guidance, but the return-value breakdown makes the intended use reasonably clear.

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