SEFAZ GO: IPVA

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: the token can be persisted via config, session-only login is possible, and the no-arg call returns a link. It discloses the interactive browser step and token handling, which is valuable beyond the structured metadata.

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 three dense sentences that pack in the tool's purpose, permanent vs. temporary modes, and parameter behavior. It is arguably slightly longer than needed but contains no filler and front-loads context effectively.

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 single-parameter auth tool with no output schema or param descriptors, this description is thorough: it covers the auth flow, token configuration options, token format, and command variants. Minor omissions exist, such as error cases or what happens on invalid tokens, but the core usages are well 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?

Schema gives no description for the token property, so this carries the full burden. The description explains that token is a JWT to be pasted after user login, and that omitting it triggers a link generation flow. This fully compensates for 0% schema description coverage.

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's purpose: authenticating MCP.AI for IDE agents by obtaining an access token through a browser login. It specifies the resource and action (authenticate via token) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on auth/login 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 concrete guidance on when to use the tool and in what modes: best configured permanently via an Authorization header, or called with a pasted token for a session-only login, or called with no args to retrieve a link. It provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this one.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it reveals the two distinct response states, including 'authenticated:true and empty pending[]' vs. returning connect_url and per-install URLs 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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded ('connection status and URLs') before the conditional details.

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 status tool, the description adequately covers what the agent needs: get connection status and related URLs, with explicit conditions for the two likely outcomes. It could have been slightly more explicit about exact response fields, but because the tool is simple and annotations are strong, it is sufficiently 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The input schema covers everything needed, and there are no parameter semantics for the description to enrich; the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than nonexistent arguments.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' Its conditional explanation (authenticated:true when all providers are connected, connect_url when credentials are missing) makes the purpose concrete and distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like authenticate 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 situational context: call this when you need connection status and URLs after authentication. It explains the two expected states, making it easy to infer when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use authenticate instead when credentials are absent.'

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?

Transparently explains side effects: install/uninstall modify the toolkit, invoke runs a one-off without bloating, writes require auth and can fail with empty wallet, and search/describe return installation status. No annotation contradiction; readOnlyHint false aligns with documented writes. This fully compensates for absent 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 lengthy but dense with essential operational details, front-loaded with the core flow. Every sentence adds value (distinguishing invoke vs install, credential/paid scenarios, admin permissions). Could be restructured with bullet lists, but the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

Covers the tool's full scope: marketplace exploration, execution semantics, auth/payment conditions, permanent vs temporary installs, and the prompt library sub-domain. Gaps: no mention of output/return format (though no output schema exists) and some edge-case params are unexplained. Given the multi-action surface, it's remarkably 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 has 20+ parameters with zero description coverageandar values explained inline only for core flow (mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, action). Many params remain ambiguous (e.g., immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, prompt_targets, conversation, message). The description explains action semantics but not each parameter; with 0% schema coverage, more explicit param mapping is expected.

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 states the tool is 'the official mcp.ai marketplace catalog of every MCP/tool and the way to run them.' It clearly enumerates two distinct domains (marketplace actions and prompt library) and gives a specific verb+resource for each. While the tool is multi-purpose, the description crisply defines each action's scope, making the overall purpose 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?

Excellent guidance: explicitly outlines the core flow (search → describe → invoke), contrasts temporary invoke vs permanent install ('Use install to make an MCP PERMANENT...'; 'invoke RUNS the tool one-off, without adding the MCP'), mentions prerequisites (auth/connect link, paid checkout), and lists other actions' purposes. This directly helps the agent choose the right action.

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 idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds the useful context that conversations should be included for reproduction, but it does not explain what happens after the report is submitted, such as confirmation or duplicate handling.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose, and the second provides the key usage detail without 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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no parameter-level clarification for 'message' and 'context', the description is only partially complete. It provides the essential conversation guidance but leaves some practical details unexplained.

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 carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explicitly clarifies only the 'conversation' parameter, while the required 'message' and optional 'context' are left semantically implicit.

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 an explicit verb ('Report') and names specific resources (bug, missing feature, feedback), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes this tool from unrelated siblings like show_version or authenticate.

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 usage guidance by instructing callers to include the conversation array for reproduction. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative references, but the sibling tools are sufficiently unrelated that the intended 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, so the agent knows it's a safe, read-only operation. The description adds useful context: the tool is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and has a pay-per-query cost with pre-paid credits. It also discloses data privacy aspects (LGPD). This adds behavioral context beyond annotations, but could go further (e.g., rate limits or latency). No contradiction.

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 paragraph, concise, and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It includes legal and cost information that is potentially useful but not excessive. It could be slightly better structured with line breaks, but it's not verbose.

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 moderately complex (requires two parameters, likely a data lookup). The description covers the source, pricing, and data responsibility, and there is no output schema. However, it lacks parameter format guidance and any response format information. Given the annotations convey safety, the description is adequate but leaves out important operational 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 input schema has only 'placa' and 'renavam' with no descriptions, and the description provides zero parameter-level information. The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but does not mention any parameter details (e.g., formats, length, or that 'placa' is the license plate). This is a significant 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 that the tool performs an IPVA query at SEFAZ GO, an official source. It uses a specific verb ('consultar') and resource ('SEFAZ GO: IPVA'), distinguishing it from siblings that are mostly utility tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives for similar queries (e.g., other state SEFAZ tools), so it loses a point.

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 implicit usage context by stating it is for consulting official Brazilian sources and is not for confidential data. It also mentions payment per query with pre-paid credits, which hints at usage prerequisites. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives or when not to use it. 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?

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds a small slice of behavioral context by specifying that the tool reports both 'platform' and 'adapter' versions, implying a composite return value. However, it doesn't describe the output format or whether any network/session state is accessed. Per the calibration examples, this is 'adds some value but not rich behavioral context' — a 3. There is no contradiction with the annotations, so this scores normally.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' Every word carries weight, with zero redundancy or filler. It's appropriately sized for the tool's utterly minimal scope.

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 tool with strong annotations, the description is essentially complete: it clearly states the operation and the full scope of what's versioned (MCP platform + adapter). The only gap is that presenting 'versions' usually implies returning data, and with no output schema available, a brief note about the return shape would have been nice. However, for the trivial complexity at hand, this is negligible, so a 4 is fair.

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 per the rubric, the baseline is 4 — there is nothing the description needs to add about parameter semantics. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description correctly does not pad itself with irrelevant parameter documentation. The only reason it's not a 5 is that the description also doesn't add any meta-information (like configuration or versioning) that could meaningfully enrich the parameter topic, but that's a minor quibble.

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 a clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. The description clearly separates it from obvious siblings like authenticate, connect, and report_bug. However, it stops short of a 5 because it doesn't differentiate itself from the potentially overlapping 'toolkit_info' sibling, and the rubric caps at 4 for 'clear but no sibling differentiation'.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied by the tool name and purpose — an agent would reasonably infer that this is for a version check — which earns the 'implied usage' 3. No credit is lost for complexity here, but there's also no extra guidance credited beyond the implied.

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 well covered. The description adds useful content detail about what state is returned, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as latency, live vs cached data, or authentication requirements. No contradiction with annotations 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then provides a concise list of the returned information. Every phrase adds value and there is 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully enumerates the return contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. For a simple parameterless read-only tool with strong annotations, this is complete and sufficient.

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 parameter meaning, and the empty schema is fully consistent with a no-input state inspection 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 specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version and connect by describing a broader state-inspection scope.

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 this tool is for inspecting toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no guidance such as 'use before connecting' or 'use to diagnose connection issues,' so usage context is only implied.

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