SEFAZ DF: ISS

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

The description reveals important behavior beyond annotations: no-args returns a login link, pasting a JWT creates a session-only login, and config headers create a permanent non-expiring connection. These details are not captured by the annotations and add meaningful 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose, then expands into the two authentication options. Every sentence contributes actionable information with no filler 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 one-optional-parameter auth tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It covers the permanent path, session path, token parameter semantics, and no-arg behavior, leaving no important usage 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining that the single `token` parameter is a JWT access token and how to use it. It also specifies the no-argument behavior, which is not evident from 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's purpose: authenticating IDE agents to MCP.AI by logging in and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself by explaining both permanent config-based auth and session-only token auth, which goes beyond the generic 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?

The description gives explicit usage instructions: add the token as an Authorization header for permanent access, paste it for session-only login, or call with no args to get a login link. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like connect, so it stops short of full alternative-tool 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds specificity about return states (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url) and behavior when credentials are missing, which is valuable beyond 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?

Two sentences, no waste, front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Fully describes the two possible states (all connected, missing credentials) and the returned fields, which is complete for a simple status tool with no parameters and no 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?

Tool has zero parameters rank. With 0 params, baseline is 4. The description explains the output behavior, which suffices 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?

States exactly what the tool does — returns connection status and URLs. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate' and 'show_version' by describing its scope (connection state, not authentication or 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?

Implies use for checking connection readiness before other operations, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. Clear context, 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 well beyond the sparse annotations by explaining side effects: invoke can return auth or checkout links when credentials/payment are needed, writes require workspace owner/admin, and invoke does a one-off install without bloat. It also clarifies installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags and the prompt library's shareable-link behavior.

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 informational paragraph with no wasted sentences, but its length and rapid-fire clauses make it harder to scan. For a 23-parameter automated marketplace tool with 14 actions, the density is understandable, though a bullet list or sectioned split would improve clarity.

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 size and no output schema, it covers nearly every action: search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt library. There are still gaps (e.g., 'resume' action is not explained, and parameter-specific examples are missing), but for such a broad surface the description is unusually 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries a heavy burden. It adds meaning to the most important parameters (action, query, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, prompt_*, tier_slug implied by billing) and lays out the call sequence. It does not describe all 23 params or give concrete formats, so it is a solid but not exhaustive compensation.

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 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them' and then walks through the search → describe → invoke flow. This makes the tool's full scope explicit and differentiates it from the sibling authentication, connection, and informational tools.

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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance: 'Use search if you need to find an MCP by intent', 'Use invoke when you need a one-off run without installing', and 'Use install only to make an MCP permanent'. It also names alternatives like list_tools for 'what is callable right now' and request_mcp when nothing fits.

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. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, only instructing to include the conversation array for reproduction. It doesn't describe side effects (e.g., sending data) or response behavior, but since annotations cover the safety profile, 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?

The description is very concise—two sentences—and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, and the second provides a key usage hint. 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?

With only 3 simple parameters and no output schema, the tool is relatively straightforward. The description adequately explains the tool's purpose and provides guidance on one important parameter. However, it does not clarify the 'context' parameter or what happens after reporting (e.g., confirmation), but these are minor gaps for a tool of this simplicity.

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 partially explains the 'conversation' parameter (for reproduction) but says nothing about 'message' or 'context'. The main parameter 'message' is inferred from the tool name, but 'context' remains ambiguous. Given the low coverage, the description falls short.

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 verb ('report') combined with a resource (bug/feature/feedback), and it is clearly distinct from siblings like authenticate or show_version, which serve different functions.

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: use when you want to report an issue or feedback. It also provides a specific usage hint: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, so it falls slightly short of the highest tier.

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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by disclosing prepaid cost, lack of platform credentials, official-source status, absence of confidential data, and LGPD/controller responsibility. There is no contradiction 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 main purpose is front-loaded, and the supporting platform/cost/privacy details are stated compactly. The text could be better structured or trimmed slightly, but every part contributes meaningful 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 adequately explains the tool's domain, cost, and legal status for selection purposes. However, because it does not describe how to use the input identifiers or what the consultation returns, and no output schema is present, the description is not sufficient for fully reliable invocation.

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 does not mention the parameters ie, cpf, or cnpj at all. It gives no guidance on whether any of them is required, which one to use, accepted formats, or whether multiple identifiers can be combined, so the agent cannot safely determine how to invoke the 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?

The description says 'SEFAZ DF: ISS, consulta em fonte oficial', giving a clear action and resource: it is an ISS consultation in the official SEFAZ DF source. It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling tools, but it does not describe exactly what kind of result or coverage the consultation returns.

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 useful operational context such as being hosted by the platform, requiring no platform credentials, and being paid by prepaid credits. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or name any sibling tools/exclusions, so usage guidance is still mostly implicit.

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, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond the basic purpose, such as output format or side effects, which is acceptable given the simple nature.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No waste.

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 version-info tool with no parameters and good annotations, the description is complete. It fully explains the tool's function without needing more details.

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 there is nothing to explain. Baseline for zero params is 4, as the description is not required to add parameter details.

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 shows current MCP platform and adapter versions, with a specific verb ('show') and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, so purpose is clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or provide context. Sibling tools like toolkit_info might overlap, but no differentiation 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds the exact return content (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, counts), providing useful context beyond the annotations. No contradictions or missing behavioral notes.

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 then lists the specific pieces of information returned. Every word adds 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 description fully enumerates what it returns, the description is complete for an agent to invoke and interpret the result. Annotations cover safety, so nothing essential 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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since none exist. The schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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: 'Returns the current toolkit state' with specific details on what it includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a specific verb+resource and distinctly differentiates from siblings 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 purpose is clear enough that an agent would infer when to use it (e.g., to inspect toolkit status). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or situations to avoid, such as 'use this before connecting' or 'for authentication use authenticate instead.' The guidance is implicit, but not explicitly stated.

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