SEFAZ GO: NFC-e (Completa)

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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: permanent non-expiring connection vs session-only login, and how the token is passed. Does not contradict any annotation hints.

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?

Moderately sized, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: describes the login flow, both methods, and how to call. No redundant phrasing.

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 an auth tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage and behavioral options adequately. Minor gap: does not mention error cases or post-auth state, but sufficient for typical use.

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 one 'token' property with 0% description coverage. Description compensates by explaining that token is optional, with or without providing it, and clarifies the two invocation modes.

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?

Clear verb+resource: authenticate to MCP.AI. Explains the login process (browser, copy token) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the dedicated authentication endpoint.

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?

Provides two explicit usage scenarios: adding a permanent header to config or passing a session token. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but gives clear context for when to invoke.

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 discloses concrete behavioral states, such as returning 'authenticated:true' and empty 'pending[]' vs. returning connect and per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) by explaining conditional output, though it does not detail the exact structure of URLs or pending[].

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 concise (two sentences), front-loads the main purpose, and every word adds value by explaining both success and failure scenarios.

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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return values in different conditions. The tool's simplicity does not require more detail, and sibling context makes its role clear.

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, the schema provides full coverage and the description naturally has little to add. The baseline of 4 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as returning connection status and URLs, using a specific verb ('Returns') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status/chECK rather than performing authentication.

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 context for when the tool is used: it explains two scenarios (all providers connected vs. missing credentials) and implies that it helps decide whether to authenticate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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 annotations' readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints: it discloses that invoke executes a one-off run WITHOUT installing the MCP or bloating the tool list, that writes require workspace owner/admin, and that install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel are the profile-changing operations. The credential/pricing behavior (returns a connect link or checkout link, then retry) is context that predictions alone cannot 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 but every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy. It loses a point for being one continuous wall-of-text: the three distinct topic areas (core MCP flow, one-off execute/install trade-off, prompt library) would scannability, but it remains appropriately sized for a 23-action, 23-param tool.

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 23 parameters, no output schema, and 14 enum actions, the description covers the most important behavior: the search→describe→install loop, the one-off execution contract (install persistence), permissions, billing, and message description. Lingering gaps: parameter-level details for query, limit, message, and immediate are not spelled out, and the output contract for a few actions is only implied.

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 does for the most by explaining action=search/describe/invoke semantics, the mcp_id + tool_id + arguments trio, the prompt_* parameter family, and the cancel flow. However, a full subset of unexplained params relevant to some actions still need mapping.

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 is explicit: 'the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them', with the core flow search→describe→invoke and a separate prompt-library feature. This is a specific, resource-bound purpose statement that clearly distinguishes the marketplace from sibling tools like authenticate, show_version, and toolkit_info.

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/when-not guidance: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'list_tools lists what is callable right now', and request_mcp for building a NEW MCP when nothing fits. It also covers the credential and payment edge flows by telling the agent to relay connect/checkout links and retry after the user acts.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's mutation profile is known. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: requiring the conversation array for reproduction. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., creating a report) or any prerequisites, relying on annotations for safety.

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 main purpose in the first sentence and a practical tip in the second. There is no redundant or filler 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?

With no output schema and zero parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is expected to fill in the gaps. It explains only the conversation parameter partially and does not cover the other parameters or describe what happens after reporting (e.g., return value). The tool is simple, but the description remains incomplete for reliable use.

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 explain parameters. It only mentions the 'conversation array' but does not clarify the required 'message' parameter or the optional 'context'. This leaves two of three parameters undefined, which is insufficient for an agent to construct a correct call.

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 a specific verb (report) and identifies the resource (bug/feature/feedback). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which are unrelated.

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 a clear context for when to use the tool (to report bugs/feedback) but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides a usage hint (include conversation array) but no exclusions or conditional 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?

Adds valuable context beyond the read-only annotations by disclosing payment per query ('pague por consulta'), lack of platform credentials needed ('sem credenciais da plataforma'), non-confidentiality of data ('não é dado sigiloso'), and LGPD compliance obligations. These details inform the agent about cost, authentication, and legal constraints.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action ('SEFAZ GO: NFC-e... consulta'), followed by brief practical and legal caveats in three sentences. It is not overly verbose, though the legal disclaimers add a bit of length.

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 tool with one string parameter and no output schema, the description covers payment, authentication, and data sensitivity aspects. However, it omits details about expected input format (e.g., NFC-e access key vs. barcode) and what the response contains, leaving some gaps that are partially acceptable given the 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?

The schema has a single 'nfce' string parameter with no description (0% coverage), and the tool description never explains what format or value this parameter expects. The only hint is the general mention of 'NFC-e' in the description, leaving the agent unsure whether to pass an access key, protocol number, or something else.

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 'consulta em fonte oficial' (query from an official source) for 'NFC-e' from 'SEFAZ GO', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from unrelated sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace' by focusing on a concrete data query operation.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., needing to authenticate first), or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, despite noting its paid nature and LGPD responsibilities.

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 agent knows it's a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context, such as that it outputs version numbers, but doesn't go beyond the annotations. With annotations providing key safety traits, a 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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action 'Show' and immediately identifies the resources. Perfectly concise for a zero-parameter tool.

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 simplicity (zero params, no output schema), the description is adequate. It explains what the tool does, but it lacks context about what the output looks like (e.g., format, whether it's a list or a string) and why one would use it. For such a simple tool, it's minimally complete but lacks extra contextual value.

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 input schema is empty. The description defines the purpose clearly, and there are no parameters to document. Since there are no params, a baseline of 4 is given per the rubric, which is justified.

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: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It specifies the resource (MCP platform and adapter) and the action (show), which is sufficient. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but given the sibling names like authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc., the purpose is distinct enough.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus others. It doesn't mention that it's a diagnostic/informational tool to check versions, or when one might want to call it (e.g., troubleshooting compatibility). The sibling tools are unrelated in name, but explicit context would be helpful.

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 communicate that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description supplements this by specifying exactly what state information is returned: installed MCPs, connection statuses, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It does not detail error/freshness behavior but is consistent 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 description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and noun. Every clause contributes meaningful information about the output, and there is 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 zero-parameter read-only status tool, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns and the annotations provide the safety/behavioral expectations. No output schema is present, but the description adequately compensates by listing the returned contents.

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 gap to compensate. The description still adds value by fully documenting what the resulting state report will contain.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' and names a concrete resource: the current toolkit state. It enumerates the exact contents of that state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts), which makes it clearly distinct from action-oriented siblings like connect and report_bug.

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 phrase 'current toolkit state' clearly suggests this is the informational/status tool to call when an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's configured integrations. It does not explicitly provide exclusions or alternatives, but the context is otherwise clear.

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