SEFAZ PA: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and is idempotent (idempotentHint=true), but the description does not discuss behavior beyond the login flow. It mentions the token can be passed or config changed, but does not describe side effects (e.g., what happens with no args). The description is not contradictory, but it adds little 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 sentence but is dense and difficult to parse. It contains multiple instructions and alternatives without clear structure, which harms scannability. It could be split into bullet points or steps. It is not overly long, but the structure is not ideal for an AI agent to quickly understand.

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's complexity (authentication flow with multiple options), the description covers the main scenarios: permanent vs session login, and how to get the link. It is reasonably complete for a single-param tool with no output schema. However, it could be clearer about the exact behavior of calling with no args, but it does state that. This is adequate.

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 parameter 'token' with no description, and the description does explain it: 'paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "<jwt>" }'. This adds semantics beyond the schema's bare property, but it is not comprehensive (e.g., no format details, though JWT is mentioned). With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates partially.

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's primary purpose is to guide IDE agents on authentication, but it is not framed as a tool description. It does not clearly state what the tool does with a specific verb and resource; instead, it describes a broader authentication flow. It does distinguish itself from siblings by focusing on authentication, but it is more of a tutorial than a tool definition.

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 explains when to use the tool (to authenticate for IDE agents), and provides two usage scenarios: adding a token to the server config for permanent access, or calling with a token for session-only login, or calling with no args to get a login link. It does not compare with alternatives directly, but the 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 safety profile is clear. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral differences between connected and missing-credential states, including the return of connect_url and per-install URLs, which exceeds the annotations. No contradiction is found.

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, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, the second elaborates on the two possible outcomes. No redundant words or unnecessary details, earning every sentence's place.

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 read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers both key scenarios (all connected and missing credentials) and explains the return content (authenticated, pending[], connect_url). It is fairly complete, though it does not enumerate all possible states (e.g., partial connections), which prevents a perfect score.

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 schema is empty. The description does not need to add parameter clues. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly omits any parameter talk because none exist.

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, and goes further to explain two distinct response scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials). This provides specific verb+resource clarity and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate (which likely performs authentication) and show_version (version 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 it should be used to check connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions two response cases which gives context, but there is no guidance on when NOT to use it or which sibling to choose instead. This is implied usage, not 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?

The annotations only state readOnlyHint false and openWorldHint true, so the description supplies the operational realities: invoke runs tools one-off, may have an implicit install behind it, requires credentials or wallet payments in certain cases, and returns retryable links. It also discloses permission requirements and the notion of installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace.

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 prose is long, but generally each section earns its place: core flow, one-off execution semantics, credential/payment edge cases, permission warnings, and the separate prompt library. Some structure would help, but it does not feel bloated; it is informative and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 large dispatcher tool with 23 parameters and no output schema, the description provides substantial contextual coverage: discovery, profiling, one-shot execution, installs, subscriptions, workspaces, permissions, and prompt library. It is missing explicit explanations for some parameters such as resume, tier_slug, immediate, and detailed return structure, but the main operational needs 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?

The input schema has a 0% parameter description coverage and an action enum, but the description explains the central parameter action and how the primary fields participate in the workflow: action=search leads to describe, then invoke; subscribe/cancel/install/uninstall are also named. It does not cover every parameter meaning (e.g. immediate, tier_slug, prompt_targets), but it compensates for most main 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 clearly identifies the tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace, acting as both the catalog of MCPs/tools and the way to discover and run them. It names concrete sub-actions like search, describe, invoke, install, and list_tools, and it positions itself apart from siblings by being the discovery and one-off execution layer.

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 guidance on when to use each action and why: prefer invoke for occasional use, only install for permanent toolkit inclusion, and let list_tools show what is callable right now. It also flags workflow steps such as invoke returning connect/checkout links and requiring owner/admin for writes, which makes the when-to-use message strong.

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 convey idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds the requirement to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is useful context, but it doesn't disclose any other behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, return behavior). Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 that front-load the action and then add a key usage directive. No fluff or unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the core function and a critical usage detail (conversation array). It doesn't explain every nuance, but it's sufficient for the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains 'conversation' as an array of messages, but does not clarify 'message' or 'context'. However, 'message' is self-evident as the bug report text, and 'context' is partially implied. Partial compensation.

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: reporting bugs, missing features, or feedback. It uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('bug, missing feature, or send feedback'), and distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which handle reporting.

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?

It states the tool is for reporting bugs/feedback, and instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, the sibling tools are unrelated, so usage 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. The description adds extra context beyond annotations: 'não é dado sigiloso' and LGPD note about data controller responsibility, which informs safety and legal handling. 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 concise, a single paragraph that front-loads the core purpose. It includes necessary operational details (payment, no credentials) and a legal note (LGPD), which adds length but is relevant context. There is minimal fluff, earning a high 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?

Given no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and low complexity (3 simple string params), the description is incomplete. It does not specify what identifiers are valid (e.g., IE, CPF, CNPJ format) or what the response contains. The description only states the query purpose but leaves the agent without input guidance or expected output 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?

Schema has 3 parameters (ie, cpf, cnpj) with no descriptions, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not mention any of these parameters, nor their purpose (e.g., which to use for which entity type). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema guidance, leaving the agent unclear on how to populate the inputs.

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 'SEFAZ PA: Certidão Negativa de Débitos, consulta em fonte oficial' — a specific verb (consulta) and resource (Certidão Negativa de Débitos) with a clear reference to official Brazilian sources. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.), 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?

It provides context on when to use: 'consulta em fonte oficial' and 'Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais da plataforma, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago' — clarifying that it's a paid, credential-free query. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, though no direct alternatives exist among siblings.

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds the platform/adapter distinction. This is consistent and sufficient for a read-only, non-destructive tool.

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 is perfectly front-loaded. No fluff, exact purpose, ideal for a trivial 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 parameterless, read-only tool, this is complete. The output schema is absent, and the description sufficiently communicates the tool's functionality without needing additional context.

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, there's nothing to explain. The schema coverage is 100% by default, and the description correctly omits parameter details, so 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 purpose is clear: showing version info, a zero-param tool with an empty schema. It gets a solid baseline for a trivial operation, but the description doesn't go beyond the title's basic function.

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 guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. For a simple version display, the context is self-evident, but no explicit mention of related tools like toolkit_info or marketplace is provided.

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 destructiveHint: false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds value by specifying exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count), which is useful context beyond the annotations. 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?

A single clear sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the returned information. No 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?

The description explains the returned state details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). With no parameters and no output schema, this is sufficient. Missing any mention of format or additional details but adequate given the tool's 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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't need to explain anything about 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 clearly states that the tool returns the current toolkit state, listing specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which are action-oriented. The verb 'Returns' and the resource 'toolkit state' are specific and 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?

The description provides clear context for when this tool is useful (to inspect state), but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives. Sibling tools are action-oriented (authenticate, connect, etc.), so an agent can infer when to use it. However, no exclusions or alternative selections are mentioned.

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