SEFAZ GO DEC: Caixa Postal

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

Annotations already hint at idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the description adds substantial context: it explains the permanent vs session behavior, the fact that calling with no args returns a link, and the JWT token usage. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the expected workflow.

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 adequately concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose ('log in in the browser, copy the access token') followed by usage details. Each sentence contributes value, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 schema (one optional param), no output schema, and existing annotations, the description covers the main usage scenarios (permanent config vs session) and the token parameter. It doesn't detail return values or error handling, but for an authentication tool with these specs, it is fairly 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 coverage is 0%, and the description compensates well by explaining that the 'token' parameter is a JWT to paste after user login. It indicates that calling without arguments retrieves a link, which is essential parameter context that the schema lacks.

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 its purpose: authenticate with MCP.AI for IDE agents via browser login and token retrieval. It specifies the resource (MCP.AI) and the action (authenticate), but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'connect' tool, so it's clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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: adding the token to config for a permanent connection or pasting it for a session-only login, and explains the no-arg call to get the link. It doesn't give exclusions vs alternatives, but the context of when to use each mode 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what happens under different connection states, including the presence of 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then detailing conditional behavior. Every sentence adds value; no filler or redundant repetition of annotations 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?

Given the simple zero-parameter nature of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the main return scenarios well. It doesn't explicitly address partial-provider connection states, but the provided conditions are sufficient for most use cases.

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, and the schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter explanation is needed. The description correctly focuses on output behavior instead. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter 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 uses a clear verb-resource pairing ('Returns connection status and URLs') and specifies meaningful conditional outputs (authenticated vs pending, connect_url). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate by framing this as a status/URL inspection tool rather than an auth action.

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 the tool's conditional behavior clearly, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over authenticate or other siblings. Usage context is implied rather than stated, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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?

Despite annotations only providing readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint, the description goes far beyond by revealing key behavioral traits: invoke runs tools one-off without bloating the list, returns connect/checkout links, requires owner/admin for writes, flags installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace, and clearly describes the prompt library side. 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?

The description is long but information-dense; it front-loads the core action flow before diving into exceptions and the prompt library. It earns its length for a tool with 23 params and several action modes, though a more structured bulleted layout could improve readability. It is not needlessly bloated.

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 enormous scope of this tool, the description covers the main loop, edge cases (auth, payment), permission constraints, the no-install invoke behavior, handle billing, and the separate prompt library. It even hints at returned link behavior, which is sufficient given no output schema. This is about as complete as a single description can be.

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 compensates by explaining the action enum and how fields like tool_id, mcp_id, and arguments relate to the search/describe/invoke flow. It also covers the prompt-related params via the prompt library explanation. However, it does not explicitly define many individual parameters such as cancel_reason, report_context, prompt_title, or limit, leaving some agent guesswork.

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 the official mcp.ai marketplace catalog and execution mechanism, covering a wide range of capabilities (search, describe, invoke, install, billing, prompt library). It provides a precise verb+resource definition and distinguishes its core purpose from sibling tools by mapping the action-based flow.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use,' plus distinguishes list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, and request_mcp. It explains that invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, and clarifies that writes require owner/admin. This is exactly the kind of usage context an agent needs.

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 safety (not readOnly, not destructive, idempotent). The description adds useful context about including the conversation for reproduction, but it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., where the report goes) or what happens after submission. With annotations present, the added value is moderate.

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 purpose and immediately actionable. Every word contributes value; no redundancy or 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?

For a simple bug-report tool, the description covers the core purpose and a key parameter hint. However, the required 'message' parameter lacks direct explanation, and there is no mention of return behavior or confirmation, which could leave the agent unsure about the outcome. Adequate but with clear 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 clarifies the 'conversation' parameter's purpose, but the required 'message' field and 'context' are not explicitly explained. The overall purpose implies 'message' is the bug/feedback text, but this is indirect. Partial compensation at best.

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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It distinguishes itself from unrelated sibling tools (authenticate, marketplace, etc.) by naming a unique resource/action. The purpose is immediately obvious.

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 the tool (when encountering a bug/issue) and gives a concrete usage instruction ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so the guidance is more implied than 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?

The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already declare the safety profile. The description adds that data is not confidential and mentions LGPD compliance, which is relevant context. It doesn't disclose operational details like rate limits or error behavior, but given the annotations, the added compliance note earns a middle score.

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 short but includes significant legal and payment boilerplate that doesn't directly help with invocation. It front-loads the tool's identity but then devotes space to compliance rather than functional details. It's concise but not optimally structured for agent use.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description doesn't explain what the query returns, what inputs are needed beyond authentication, or any usage steps. The compliance notes are useful but don't compensate for the missing operational clarity. Overall, it's incomplete for a tool with 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the agent has no guidance on what 'ie', 'cnpj', 'pkcs12_cert', 'pkcs12_pass', or 'ignora_nao_lidas' mean. The description only mentions the overall purpose, not how to fill parameters. This is a critical 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 identifies a specific resource (Caixa Postal) and a clear action (consulta) within the SEFAZ GO DEC context. It distinguishes from generic sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace' by naming a concrete query type. However, it could be more specific about what information is returned, so it doesn't achieve full clarity.

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 mentions payment model (prepaid credit) and that no platform credentials are needed, which implies usage context. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus others, but since siblings are unrelated, this is less critical. Still, no concrete use-case or alternatives are provided, so it's only moderately useful.

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 no additional behavioral context beyond stating the action. There is no contradiction between description and 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, concise sentence that front-loads the action verb and resource. Every word contributes value with no padding.

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 informational tool with rich annotations, the description is fully adequate. No output schema is present, but the purpose is simple and the description suffices without additional detail.

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 description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters.

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 resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly stating the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like toolkit_info, but the focus on versions gives implicit distinction.

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 alternatives are provided. Usage is implied by the name and description: call when version information is needed. For a simple informational tool, this is adequate but lacks explicit 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 clear. The description adds the scope of information returned (installed MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts) but does not disclose any additional behavioral details like potential latency or partial failures, which is acceptable given the simple read operation.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then enumerates the specific information included. There is no waste or repetition.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete for a simple read-only state tool. It explains what the output contains (installed MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts), which is sufficient for the agent to understand its use. It could benefit from mentioning the output format or structure, but that is a minor 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), so a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description clearly communicates what the tool does, which is enough for a no-parameter 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns the current toolkit state, listing installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It uses specific verbs and resource references, and it is well-differentiated from siblings like connect and authenticate, which are action-oriented.

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 that this tool should be used to check the state of the toolkit, which is a distinct read-only operation versus siblings that perform actions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it slightly falls short of a 5.

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