SEFAZ GO: Produtor Rural

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

The description adds transparency beyond annotations by explaining the dual nature (permanent vs session) and that no args returns a link. It implies side effects (modifying server config) but does not contradict the idempotentHint and non-destructive annotations. The added context about permanent vs session is valuable.

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 somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds essential information: how to obtain the token, permanent vs session usage, and fallback to get the link. No superfluous content; it is appropriately detailed for the 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?

The description covers the main behavioral aspects: how to authenticate, what arguments to pass, and the distinction between permanent and session modes. Since there is no output schema, it does not need to explain return values, but it could have mentioned the expected response format for completeness. Overall, it is complete enough for typical usage.

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 single parameter `token` is clearly explained: it is the JWT to be used for session login, and the description notes that it is optional (can call with no args to get the link). This fully covers the schema's minimal definition.

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 the user via a browser login and token, with options for permanent or session-based access. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by focusing solely on 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 explicit usage instructions, explaining the best practice (adding token to server config for permanent connection), alternative (session-only login), and how to invoke (with or without args). It does not explicitly compare to other tools, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description adds context about return states (authenticated true vs connect_url). It doesn't mention auth requirements or rate limits beyond what's implied. 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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and provides only necessary details. Zero 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?

Without output schema, the description explains key return values (authenticated flag, pending[], connect_url). It's complete for its simplicity, but lacks explicit note about per-install URLs format.

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?

No parameters exist, so description's job is minimal. It provides enough context about behavior without needing to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 it returns connection status and URLs, with specifics about two states (all connected vs missing credentials). It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate (action) and shows connection state info, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 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 implies when to use: to check connection status, especially when credentials may be missing. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like authenticate, but the context makes it clear for status checking.

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses key behaviors: it mentions writes require workspace owner/admin, that invoke can run tools without installing them, that auth/paywall issues surface as links, and that catalog entries flag install status. These are significant behavioral disclosures that significantly aid agent decision-making.

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 detailed yet efficiently organized, front-loading the core flow, devoting focused segments to invocation side effects, installation, billing, and the prompt library. No sentence is wasted; each adds distinct value. Despite its length, the density and clear structure merit a top score.

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?

This is a highly complex tool with a broad set of actions, but the description covers each action's purpose, side effects, and typical use cases. It also explains return behaviors (links for auth/payment, profiles from describe) even though no output schema exists. The inclusion of admin requirements and the prompt library further completes the picture.

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 carries heavy responsibility. It provides context for many parameters through its narrative (e.g., action, mcp_id, tool_id, prompt_* fields) but does not explicitly explain every parameter (e.g., limit, query, conversation, arguments). However, it compensates partially by explaining the action flow, which renders many parameters self-evident. Still, some parameters like `conversation` are undefined, leaving gaps.

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 provides a comprehensive overview of the marketplace tool with specific verbs and resources: it explains the core search-describe-invoke flow, differentiates the actions (search, describe, install, invoke, etc.), and clarifies the difference between permanent installation and one-off invocation. It also contrasts with sibling tools (like authenticate, connect) by positioning itself as the catalog and execution platform.

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 explicitly gives actionable guidance: it instructs to use `invoke` for single/occasional use and `install` for permanent MCPs, states when credentials or payment are needed, and directs users to `subscribe`/`cancel` for per-MCP billing and `request_mcp` when nothing fits. It also explains the prompt library separate from MCPs, ensuring correct selection.

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 indicate the tool is not read-only and is idempotent, which aligns with the description's implication of submitting a report. The description adds the detail about including conversation for reproduction, but does not describe side effects beyond that. It does not contradict 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 concise, with two clear sentences and no unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 low parameter coverage, the description should clarify all parameters but only addresses conversation. It also lacks any mention of the expected output or return value, making it incomplete for a tool with minimal schema annotation.

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 very low (0% descriptions). The description only clarifies the 'conversation' parameter as an array for reproduction, but does not explain 'message' (which is required) or 'context'. This leaves significant ambiguity about their meanings.

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: reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback. It also mentions the inclusion of a conversation array for reproduction, which adds specificity.

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 for bug/feedback reporting but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or provide context on when not to use it. The purpose is clear enough that usage is inferable, but guidance is minimal.

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 indicate a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context about the external data source, pay-per-query cost, non-confidential data nature, and LGPD responsibility, which informs the agent of important side effects beyond 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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It contains several distinct facts—official source, hosting, payment, data nature, legal compliance—each contributing value, with minimal 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?

As a simple one-parameter read operation, the description covers the data source and legal context but omits the input parameter's meaning and any expected response structure. Since there is no output schema, more detail on return values would be needed for full completeness.

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 only parameter 'ie' is not described in either the schema or the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to explain what 'ie' represents or its expected format, leaving the agent to guess it means Inscrição Estadual.

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 tool is for consulting rural producer information from SEFAZ Goiás, using the verb 'consulta' and specifying the official source. It is distinct from sibling tools, which are platform-level utilities like authenticate or marketplace.

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 usage context: it uses official data, requires no platform credentials, and operates on prepaid credit. Although it does not explicitly name alternatives, sibling tools are unrelated, so the guidance is sufficient for selection.

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, non-mutating operation. The description adds no extra behavior details (e.g., output format), but given the trivial nature of the tool, this is acceptable. With annotations covering safety, the description does not need to repeat them.

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 precise sentence with zero redundancy. It fully conveys the tool's function in the most economical way possible.

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 tool with clear annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It fully explains the tool's purpose without needing additional behavioral 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?

There are zero parameters; the schema is fully covered at 100%. With no parameters to describe, the description needs no parameter-level guidance. Baseline of 4 is appropriate given the empty 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 shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplace, which serve different purposes.

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 intended usage is obvious: call when you need version information. While not explicitly stating alternatives, the description provides clear context and there are no overlapping tools that perform the same function.

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 safety. The description adds substantial behavioral context by detailing the specific content returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), going beyond what annotations 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists all included details. Every word adds value 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple informational role, the description fully explains what the tool returns and is sufficiently complete for an agent to know when and how to invoke it.

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 since none exist, and it accurately focuses on the output.

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 verb 'Returns' and exactly what resource ('current toolkit state') with specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect and authenticate, which perform actions rather than return information.

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 for checking toolkit state, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. However, given the tool's informational nature and zero parameters, the context is clear enough that an agent would know to call it when needing status information.

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