SEFAZ GO: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

The description discloses the behavioral traits: it explains the session vs permanent relationship via config, and that calling without args returns a link. Annotations (idempotentHint=true, no destructive hints) are not contradicted. It adds context beyond annotations, such as the token format and the two login modes, though it doesn't mention potential side effects like invalidating prior sessions, which is a minor gap.

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 but the second is lengthy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then details usage. No wasted words; every phrase adds value. It could be slightly tighter, but the information density is high and well-organized.

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 this is a simple authentication tool with no output schema and minimal parameters, the description covers the essential context: both authentication methods, the token parameter semantics, and the permanent vs session distinction. It doesn't mention error handling or edge cases (e.g., expired tokens), but that is not critical for selecting and invoking the tool correctly. The sibling context and annotations complete the picture adequately.

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 only defines 'token' as a string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. However, the description explains the token parameter by showing usage 'call with { token: "<jwt>" }' and clarifies it is optional by stating 'or with no args'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, compensating for the lack of schema documentation. It could be more explicit about the token's format implications (JWT) but that is inferred.

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: 'log in in the browser, copy the access token' for MCP.AI with IDE agents. It explicitly names the resource (MCP.AI) and the action (authenticate). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by specifying this is for authenticating with MCP.AI, not general connection.

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 usage instructions: it explains the two primary ways to authenticate (permanent via config header, or session-only by passing a token) and details how to call the tool ('call with { token: "<jwt>" }' or 'with no args to get the link'). It also indicates when to prefer the config approach ('Best: add it to this server's config') giving clear context.

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 establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds concrete behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying exact conditions and returned fields (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs). This is valuable transparency for an agent.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then elaborating conditionally. No wasted words and the structure is easy to scan.

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 parameterless, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers both relevant states and return values. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per rubric. The description does not need to add schema meaning because no inputs exist.

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 returns connection status and URLs, a specific read-only resource. It also clarifies behavior across connected and missing-credential states, which differentiates it from siblings like authenticate and 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 implies when to use connect—check connection status and obtain URLs when credentials are missing—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Clear context, but no 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 adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: invoke runs tools without installing them, credentials produce a connect link, empty-wallet paid tools produce a checkout link, writes require workspace owner/admin, and publish_prompt produces a shareable no-login link. These are actionable side-effect disclosures that the annotations do not provide.

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 dense and front-loaded with the main purpose and workflow, and it uses 'KEY' and 'Core flow' to signpost important content. However, it is a single long paragraph covering 14 actions and 23 parameters; bulleted sections by action group would improve scannability. Every sentence is still informative.

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 complex dispatch-style tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers the main marketplace flow, install vs invoke, auth/wallet behaviors, permission requirements, and the prompt library. It is missing explanation of the resume action and several parameter-level details, but overall it is substantially complete for the core decision paths.

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 and 23 parameters, the description must compensate. It explains the action enum well and maps the core flow to params like mcp_id, tool_id, and arguments, plus the prompt-related actions. However, many parameters remain unexplained (resume, immediate, limit, tier_slug, cancel_reason, prompt_title, conversation, etc.), so the compensation is incomplete.

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 tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace catalog and execution layer, and spells out the core flow: search → describe → invoke. This is far more specific than the bare name 'marketplace' and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate/connect by framing it as the catalog/run surface.

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 guidance on when to use each action: invoke for one-off runs, install only for permanent toolkit inclusion, request_mcp when nothing fits, report_bug for feedback, and subscribe/cancel for billing. It also explains the search/describe discovery flow, which is a clear 'how to use this tool vs alternatives' instruction set.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description does not contradict these and adds a note about including the conversation array for reproduction, which is more of a parameter usage detail than a behavioral disclosure. It doesn't describe side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, but with annotations present, the added context is acceptable.

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 purpose, and every word earns its place. It directly states what the tool does and gives a crucial usage hint without fluff.

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 simple nature of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does and how to use the key parameter (conversation). There are no missing critical instructions that would prevent correct usage, so it is complete enough for this complexity.

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 for parameter meaning. It explains the 'conversation' parameter by saying 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' which adds clarity. However, it does not explain 'message' or 'context' beyond what the schema shows (message is required, context has a default). The description partially covers parameters but not fully.

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 specific verbs and a defined resource, and none of the sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) overlap with this functionality, distinguishing it effectively.

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 instruction on what to include ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Its purpose implies it's for feedback, but there's no explicit when/when-not guidance, so it's only at an implied level.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: platform hosting, prepaid per-query costs, lack of platform credentials, official-source nature, and LGPD data-controller responsibilities. It does not cover error/return behavior, but the safety profile is already well handled by 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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the tool's name and purpose. It includes some repetition ('fonte oficial' appears twice) and legal/LGPD boilerplate, but it remains readable and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 read-only query tool with good annotations, the description covers purpose, source, auth, cost, and data governance. However, with no output schema and no parameter guidance, the description leaves some gaps about expected inputs and the shape of the response, making it only minimally 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%, and the description does not mention the cpf or cnpj parameters at all. It fails to state whether one or both are required, mutually exclusive, or how they should be formatted. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema-level guidance.

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: 'SEFAZ GO: Certidão Negativa de Débitos, consulta em fonte oficial' — a specific query operation for a Brazilian official debt certificate. This strongly distinguishes it from the generic sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, 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 provides useful usage context: it queries official Brazilian sources, requires no platform credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credit. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so the absence of explicit exclusions is not a major issue.

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, giving a clear safety profile. The description adds the detail that it reports both MCP platform and adapter versions, which is useful context beyond the annotations. 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?

A single sentence of ten words that fully communicates the tool's purpose. No wasted words, no redundant information, and the key information is front-loaded.

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, version-information tool with strong annotations and a clear purpose, the description is complete. It does not need to explain return values in detail since the tool is trivially simple and the behavior is fully captured.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the input schema is entirely covered by the absence of properties. No additional parameter guidance is necessary.

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?

Specific verb 'show' with resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions' clearly defines what the tool does. Distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplace, so there is no ambiguity about 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?

The description implies usage as a diagnostic/environment-information tool but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. With no real alternative for version checking among siblings, this is adequate but not explicit.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the return content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), which is useful behavioral information about what the tool reports. No contradictions 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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the details. No wasted words, perfect length for the tool's simplicity.

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 no parameters, rich safety annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does: it lists the key data points returned. Given the tool's simplicity, this is complete and adequate—no missing critical 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline per instructions is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none. It enriches the understanding by detailing what the tool returns, which is more relevant than parameter info here.

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 returns the current toolkit state, listing specific components (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts). It uses a specific verb 'returns' and distinguishes from sibling tools like show_version (which likely reports version) by focusing on state rather than 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 implies usage when one needs an overview of the toolkit's state. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough that the use case is obvious. No direct exclusions are stated, but the context of sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) makes the differentiation implicit.

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