SEFAZ DF: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Annotations declare it is non-read-only and idempotent, but the description adds crucial context: browser login, JWT token, permanence vs session, and the generation of a link when no args are given. It doesn't detail error handling or storage side effects, but given the annotation coverage, the added specifics are above the baseline.

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, compact paragraph that gets straight to the point, starting with the core flow. It is somewhat dense but every sentence contributes meaningful guidance. A few words could be cut, but it is efficient.

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 lack of an output schema, the description explains enough about the expected behavior (link vs token) to guide an agent. It does not cover errors or invalid tokens, but for a straightforward authentication tool, 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?

The schema has only a bare 'token' field with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT pasted by the user, and that no args triggers link generation. This adds vital 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 the tool authenticates IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining a token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing solely on the authentication flow, naming the specific actions (log in, copy token) and two modes (config or session). No other sibling shares this purpose.

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 guidance is given: the 'Best' flow (add to config for permanent access) and an alternative (paste token for session-only). It also explains when to call with no arguments to obtain the link. This clearly instructs when and how to use the tool.

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 and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the exact response shape (authenticated, pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs) and how it varies by state. This goes beyond annotations 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word earns its place, and the structure mirrors the tool's branching logic succinctly.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return values sufficiently for a tool of this simplicity. It covers the two main outcomes and the fields returned, making it complete 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 zero parameters, schema coverage is trivially complete, and the description isn't expected to add parameter details. The baseline of 4 for no parameters 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?

Description clearly states a specific verb ('Returns connection status and URLs') and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like authenticate. It explains behavior under different conditions (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 context by describing conditional outputs (e.g., 'When all providers are connected... When credentials are missing...'), but it does not explicitly reference alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool. The guidance is context-rich but lacks explicit exclusions.

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 goes far beyond the annotations: it reveals that invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, returns a connect link for missing credentials, returns a checkout/top-up link for paid tools with an empty wallet, and requires retry. It also warns that writes (install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel and the one-off install behind invoke) require owner/admin. No contradictions with annotations, readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false are consistent.

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 appropriately dense for such a broad, multi-role marketplace tool. It front-loads the primary purpose and then structures into core flow, exceptions (invoke), permanent install, event-list, and the prompt-library subdomain. Minor noise like the 'consulta um CPF' example and the odd 'pontualmente' wording slightly they the focus, but most sentences earn their 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?

Despite its length, this description leaves important gaps: the action enum does not contain the highlighted "invoke" action, there is no explicit mention of the 'resume' action, and the schema does not define output behavior for most actions beyond the few links mentioned. With 23 parameters and no output schema, the description slightly explains the full operational contract.

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% description coverage in the schema, the description provides a strong conceptual map but not a full parameter mapping. It clarifies core infra-structural after action=search, describe, etc., and the prompt-library variables, but many parameters remain ambiguous: `tier_slug`, `immediate`, `conversation`, `cancel_reason`, and most `prompt_*` fields are only implied by context. This leaves the agent to guess how to populate several fields.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace — 'the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them' — and enumerates its major actions (search, describe, install, subscribe/cancel) and the secondary prompt-library capability. It clearly separates this mega-tool from its siblings by positioning it as the central catalog and execution hub.

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 highly actionable usage rules: use install only to make an MCP permanent, prefer invoke for single/occasional use, use subscribe/cancel for billing, report_bug for feedback, and request_mcp for requesting new MCPs. It also explains shown require owner/admin for write operations, and flags installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace states.

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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds the useful detail that conversations should be included for reproduction, but it does not describe post-submission behavior, response handling, or any potential side effects beyond what the annotations suggest.

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 only two sentences, with the main purpose stated first and a concise reproduction instruction second. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or vague 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, and annotations provide a good safety profile, but there is no output schema and the description omits details about message content expectations, return values, or failure modes. It is minimally viable but leaves some gaps.

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 explicitly mentions the conversation array, but it does not explain the message or context parameters, leaving their meaning mostly implied by the tool name and purpose. This is a notable gap.

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 reports a bug, missing feature, or sends feedback, which is a specific action on a clear resource. It is easy to distinguish 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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool and even instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the sibling tools are clearly unrelated, making the intended usage 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral/compliance context: it is hosted by the platform, billed per query via prepaid credit, does not involve confidential data, and places LGPD controller responsibility on the client. This goes beyond the annotations 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 a single dense but reasonably sized sentence that front-loads the purpose before adding commercial and legal context. It could be better structured, but it contains no filler and earns its length by covering several relevant operational aspects.

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 purpose, official source, payment, credentials, and data privacy, and the annotations cover safety. However, it lacks any guidance on which of the four optional identifiers to use and does not describe the expected result, leaving a meaningful gap for a tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation.

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 never mentions the parameters (cpf, cnpj, renavam, inscricao_imovel). It does not indicate which identifier(s) should be supplied or how they relate to the certificate query, so the agent receives no parameter guidance beyond the bare property names.

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 a specific action ('consulta') on a specific resource ('Certidão Negativa de Débitos' from SEFAZ DF). It distinguishes this tool from the generic sibling tools (authenticate, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) by naming the exact official source and certificate type.

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 operational context: no platform credentials are needed, prepaid credit is required per query, and the data is the same as what citizens can access. It does not name explicit alternatives, but no sibling tool is a plausible alternative, so the context is sufficient without exclusions.

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, so the description does not need to restate those safety properties. The description adds no behavioral nuance beyond 'Shows versions,' but this is acceptable for a simple zero-parameter read-only tool; nothing contradicts 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 a single, compact sentence that states the tool's purpose directly. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary structured 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 tool with strong annotations, the description is sufficient and complete. Because it names exactly what is reported ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), it compensates adequately for the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description needs no additional parameter semantics.

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 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly indicates what the tool reports and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like toolkit_info by specifying 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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as toolkit_info or connect. Even though the intended use is easy to infer, there is no context about prerequisites, timing, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond those by clarifying the exact return contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, per-MCP catalog-tool counts). This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting 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 one focused sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and scope. The colon-separated list of what the state includes adds value without wasted words or redundancy.

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 no-parameter, read-only utility with strong annotations and no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the key information returned. It could be more explicit about formats or edge cases (e.g., what 'connection status' means), but the tool's functional range is sufficiently covered.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100% and includes all required information. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantic detail for the description to compensate for or enhance.

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') with a precise scope: the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as 'show_version' or 'marketplace', even though those names are not explicitly mentioned.

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 context for when this tool should be used: whenever you need high-level information about the toolkit's MCP installations and connections. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternate tools, but the use case is unambiguous for a read-only, zero-parameter inspection tool.

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