SEFAZ BA: IPVA

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

The description explains the behavior of no-args (returns link) and token-pasted (session login), plus the recommendation for permanent header config. Annotations already indicate idempotent non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful detail about the token flow.

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 bit long but every sentence serves a purpose: explaining the flow, the permanent config option, and the two call variants. It's structured logically and not wasteful.

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 covers the essential usage scenarios for an authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. It explains both permanent and session auth, and the no-arg behavior. Could mention what response to expect, but overall 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?

The schema has a single optional 'token' parameter with zero description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining that the token is a JWT for session-only login and that omitting it returns the login link. This adds critical semantic meaning beyond the 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 this is an authentication tool for IDE agents, describing the browser login flow and token usage. The verb 'log in' and references to access tokens establish the purpose. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'connect' but 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?

Provides explicit guidance on two usage modes: permanent config via Authorization header vs session-only by pasting token. It also explains when to call with no args to get the link. This is clear context, though it doesn't discuss alternatives among siblings.

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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail about conditional outputs, such as authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url when credentials are missing.

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 meaningful detail about expected return values. No wasted words.

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 low complexity, no parameters, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains behavior for both the success and missing-credentials cases. It could go slightly further by addressing partially connected states, but overall it is complete enough.

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 not applicable. The description does not need to compensate, and the schema coverage is effectively 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 clearly states the tool's function: returning connection status and URLs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status inspection rather than authentication actions.

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 explains when the tool is relevant by describing the two states it reports on: all providers connected vs. missing credentials. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the when-to-use context is 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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: invoke runs one-off without bloating the toolkit; describe returns full profile including pricing and auth; writes require workspace owner/admin; empty wallets trigger a checkout/top-up link; and the prompt library stores ready-made prompt text rather than MCPs. These details greatly exceed what the annotations alone communicate. No contradiction with the annotations' read/write hints exists.

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?

Despite being a dense paragraph, every sentence earns its place. The description front-loads the core flow and then structures the content: search → describe → invoke → install → billing/feedback/requests → prompt library. Each sentence delivers a distinct behavioral or usage fact, with no repetition 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?

For a tool orchestrating dozens of actions with no output schema and weak annotations, the description is nearly all-comprehensive. It covers discovery, one-off execution, permanent installation, listing tools, billing, bug reporting, new-world MCP requests, and the prompt-library sub-feature, including return links for auth and payment. Missing details around individual parameters are the only real gap, and that's more of a schema-description problem than a tool-level completeness problem.

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 23 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only covers the domain-level meaning of a few actions like action=search, describe, invoke, and prompt-related functions. It does not explain how concrete parameters such as limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, prompt_body, prompt_vars, request_details, or conversation should be used. The high-level flow is clear, but mapping it to this large parameter surface is left to inference.

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's opening sentence clearly defines the tool: 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It covers specific actions such as search, describe, invoke, install, and the prompt library, making its purpose and scope unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like report_bug or connect by enumerating its own capabilities.

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 offers explicit guidance: 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use,' and states that 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed.' It also provides conditional behavior for credentials, payments, ownership, and alternatives like list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, and request_mcp. This is exceptionally complete when-to-use-and-when-not-to-use guidance.

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 non-read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds the requirement to include a conversation array for reproduction. This is useful but does not disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., where the report goes, whether confirmation is given). With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, no filler. Every part adds value: the purpose and the key instructional detail about including conversation for reproduction.

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, the description covers the core action and one parameter, but lacks details on parameter formats (especially conversation as a JSON string), return behavior, or system effects. It is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

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, but it only mentions the conversation parameter. It does not explain the required 'message' parameter or the optional 'context' parameter, their formats, or expected content. This leaves two of three parameters underspecified.

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 states a clear action ('Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback') with a specific resource (the tool itself). It is not a tautology and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which serve unrelated purposes.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool (for bugs, missing features, feedback). However, it does not provide exclusions or alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites like authentication. This is clear context but not full when/when-not coverage.

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 say readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful details beyond structured fields: prepaid credit payment, no platform credentials required, official non-confidential data, and LGPD responsibility for legitimate purpose.

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 and front-loads the central purpose in the first sentence. It efficiently packs cost, auth, sovereignty, and legal responsibility, though the LGPD sentence is slightly tangential to invocation mechanics.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, official source, payment, and data governance responsibilities. It does not explain the return shape or parameter formatting details, but the tool is otherwise well 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 input schema has one required `renavam` string with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what `renavam` means, its format, or any constraints; it relies on the name and domain context to convey that this is the vehicle registration number.

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 phrase "SEFAZ BA: IPVA, consulta em fonte oficial" clearly identifies this as an official IPVA query tool for SEFAZ BA. It is specific to the IPVA domain and distinct from the unrelated platform/toolbox siblings, though the main verb is effectively supplied by the tool name.

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 alternatives or exclusion criteria are given, but the context strongly implies use when IPVA information from SEFAZ BA is needed. The payment and hosting notes give operational constraints, but no clear 'use this instead of X' guidance is 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds minimal extra context ('current' versions) but does not disclose anything beyond the annotations, such as output format or whether it requires network access.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words or repetition of the name or schema.

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 no-parameter, read-only version inquiry, the description is complete. No output schema exists, but the return value (version info) is implied by the description. There are no additional complexities to document.

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 no parameter description is needed. The baseline is 4, and the schema coverage is trivially satisfied with an empty parameter list. The description adds nothing about parameters, which 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 ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This unambiguously distinguishes this tool from siblings 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 clearly states its function, so usage context is implied, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as toolkit_info. No exclusions or comparisons 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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds concrete details about the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect. No contradictions.

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 sentence that is information-dense and front-loaded. It lists all key contents without fluff. Every phrase 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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, and annotations already cover safety and idempotency. The description fully specifies the return contents (MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog counts), making it complete for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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 the schema is empty with 100% coverage (vacuous). The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't attempt to. Since there are no parameters, the description adds full context by explaining what the response contains. This is above the baseline for no params.

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 what the tool does: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is specific and distinct from siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which focus on setup and browsing.

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 is explicit about what information is returned, which implies usage for inspecting toolkit status. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling context makes it clear that this is the status-inspection tool. Since the purpose is narrowly scoped, explicit exclusion isn't critical.

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