SEFAZ MG: NFC-e Resumida

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: browser login flow, permanent config vs session-only token, and the no-args behavior returning a link. No contradiction 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by actionable setup options. It is slightly dense with multiple instructions, but every sentence contributes useful information.

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 auth tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main invocation modes and setup steps. It does not describe response formats or error cases, but those are not critical at this complexity level.

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 one optional 'token' parameter with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining the token is a JWT to paste, and that omitting it returns the login link. This is sufficient for the single parameter.

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 an IDE agent by logging in via browser, copying the access token, and either configuring it permanently or using it for a session. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly framing this as the authentication entry point for MCP.AI.

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 usage guidance: prefer adding the token to server config for a permanent connection, or paste it for a session-only login, and call with no args to get the login link. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like 'connect', but the usage modes are clear enough.

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 operation. The description adds meaningful conditional behavior—explaining what happens when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing—which goes 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise details on conditional outputs. Every sentence adds value with 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?

Given no output schema, the description appropriately covers the main return values and state-dependent behavior. It is slightly limited by not explaining the meaning of pending[] or partial connection states, but overall sufficient for a simple status tool.

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 is empty, so there is nothing to explain. The description still usefully documents the semantic fields in the response, such as authenticated, pending[], and connect_url.

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, with specific field names and conditional behavior. It distinguishes this from siblings like authenticate or show_version by focusing on the current connection state.

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 is for checking whether providers are connected and obtaining connection URLs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like authenticate. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, only implied usage.

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, the description reveals important behaviors: invoke runs non-installed MCPs without bloating the toolkit, write operations require owner/admin, auth and checkout cases return user-facing links, and search/describe reports whether an MCP is installed. This substantially exceeds what the schema or annotation booleans communicate.

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 front-loaded and every sentence contributes functional information. It is dense and written as one wall of text rather than bullets or grouped flows, so the structure could be better, but for a tool with many actions and edge cases the length is largely justified.

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 end-to-end usage: discovery, describe, invoke, install, uninstall, billing, permission requirements, and the prompt library. It does not explain return shapes for search, list_tools, report_bug, or publish_prompt, and no output schema exists, so a few result expectations remain implicit.

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 23 parameters. It does explain the central action orchestration, mcp_id, tool_id, and prompt_vars/prompt_slug roles, but many parameters such as arguments, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, cancel_comment, and request_details are never semantically mapped.

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 precisely identifies the tool as the mcp.ai marketplace catalog and execution layer, defining a core search → describe → invoke flow. It also separates the MCP-management actions from the prompt-library actions, making the tool's role distinct from its sibling tools.

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 actionable decision rules: prefer invoke for one-off use, use install only when permanent presence is needed, use list_tools to see what is currently callable, and request_mcp when nothing fits. It also explains the credential and payment link scenarios, which clarifies when a retry is expected.

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 are present (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and not contradicted by the description. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as the optional conversation parameter for reproduction. The description could have added more about data transmission or privacy implications but is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with the key usage tip. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is perfect for an agent to quickly 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?

For a simple feedback-reporting tool with three primitive parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand its function and how to use it. It doesn't over-explain, but for its intended, low-complexity use case, it is complete. A advanced point could be made about including message content, but it's not necessary.

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 explicitly mentions the 'conversation' parameter, explaining its purpose ('with recent messages for reproduction'). However, it does not clarify 'context' or 'message', leaving some interpretation to the schema defaults. While partially helpful, it does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This unambiguously differentiates it from the unrelated sibling tools. It is concise and leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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 a clear usage guideline: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' This gives context on how to use the tool effectively. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, the instruction is sufficient for a feedback-reporting tool.

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 behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as the official source, no platform credentials, pay-per-consultation, non-confidential data, and LGPD responsibility. This provides context about the tool's operation and 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 repetitive, stating 'consulta em fonte oficial' and later 'Consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros' which is redundant. It also repeats 'sem credenciais' and 'pague por consulta' in slightly different forms, affecting conciseness.

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 provides some context about the official source and payment, but fails to explain the input parameter or the expected output. With no output schema, agents are left without a clear understanding of what the tool returns.

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 sole parameter 'nfce' is described only as a string with no explanation in the schema or description. Its meaning is not elaborated, leaving agents uncertain about what value to provide.

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: 'SEFAZ MG: NFC-e Resumida, consulta em fonte oficial' indicating a consultation for NFC-e summary from an official source. It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect.

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 consulting NFC-e summaries but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions payment and prepaid credits, which gives some usage context, but lacks a clear 'use when' statement.

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 key behavioral aspects: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no new behavioral details (e.g., what exactly is returned or whether network calls are made). Since the tool is trivial and annotations are strong, a 3 is appropriate: it doesn't contradict, but also doesn't add much beyond 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, clear sentence that conveys the tool's purpose efficiently. There is no unnecessary verbiage; every word earns its place. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 is extremely simple (no parameters, no output schema, strong annotations), the description is complete enough. The agent knows exactly what the tool does, and annotations cover safety/repeatability. There is nothing missing for effective 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?

This tool has no parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain any. The schema coverage is 100% trivially (empty properties). With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description is adequate.

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 version information for the MCP platform and adapters. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies the resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'). While it doesn't differentiate from siblings, the siblings are unrelated, so no differentiation is needed; thus a 4 is appropriate.

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: call when you need version information. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the tool is a simple getter with no parameters, minimal guidance is needed. Sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' could overlap, but without more context, a 3 is fair.

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 disclose that this is a read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive operation, so the bar for added transparency is lower. The description adds useful context about what the response contains, but it does not go further to explain behavior like whether this makes network calls to probe MCP connections or whether the output is stable over time. This is acceptable, though not exemplary.

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, dense sentence that packs in the exact resource and the categories of information returned. There is no filler, no repetition of the name, and no unnecessary background. Every word adds meaning.

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?

A zero-parameter tool with no output schema depends on the description to explain what the agent will receive; this description does that comprehensively by naming — installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. For a simple, read-only introspection tool, this is complete enough to drive correct selection and invocation.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly does not waste words on parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies for no-parameter tools.

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 key elements: installed MCPs, connection statuses, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from the listed siblings, especially show_version, because it describes an overall state inventory rather than just a version string.

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 use is implied but not explicit: if an agent needs an overview of the current toolkit state, this tool is the natural choice. However, the description does not say when not to use it, nor does it contrast it with related peers like connect, authenticate, or show_version, so contrastive guidance is missing.

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