SEFAZ PB: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it explains that calling with no args returns a login link, and calling with a token performs a session-only login. It also discloses that the token is a JWT and that the config-based method is permanent and non-expiring. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the side effects (session vs. permanent) and the authentication flow. 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 a single paragraph but is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. It contains necessary details about two usage modes and the config recommendation. It's slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. No fluff, but could be slightly more concise by separating the config advice from the tool invocation instructions.

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 two modes), the description covers the essential aspects: how to get the token, how to use it, and the difference between permanent and session-only. There is no output schema, but the description implies the tool returns a link or confirmation. It doesn't mention error cases or what happens if the token is invalid, but for an authentication tool, this is adequate. The description is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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 parameter 'token' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT and that it can be passed as { token: "<jwt>" } for session-only login. It also clarifies that calling with no args returns the login link. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't specify the token format beyond JWT or any constraints.

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: to authenticate the MCP server for IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on authentication, while siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' serve different functions. The verb 'authenticate' plus the resource (access token) is 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 explicit usage guidance: it explains two methods (permanent config-based token vs. session-only token), when to use each (permanent vs. session-only), and how to invoke the tool (with token argument or no args to get link). It also mentions the best practice of adding the token to the server's config. This clearly instructs the agent on when and how to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficient.

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 exact return values for connected vs. missing credentials scenarios, enhancing transparency. It does not contradict 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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences with no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 absence of parameters and a clear description of both possible return states, the description is complete. It fully informs the agent about what to expect without needing an output schema.

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 no parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially complete. The description provides all necessary context for invoking the tool without needing parameter explanations.

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, distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace. The verb 'Returns' is specific and the purpose is 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 implies usage when checking connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. However, the read-only nature and clear return conditions make the appropriate context apparent.

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 rich behavioral traits well beyond the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true): invoke works one-off without installing/bloating the toolkit, returns a connect link when auth is needed, returns a checkout/top-up link when the wallet is empty (then retry), writes require workspace owner/admin, and search/describe flag installed status. No contradictions with annotations; these behaviors align with openWorldHint.

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 with purpose and every sentence adds value, but it's a dense single block of text covering two distinct domains (MCP marketplace + prompt library) without structural breaks (bullets or action groupings). For the tool's complexity it's reasonably tight, but would benefit from segmentation.

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 extremely complex tool (23 params, 14 actions, no output schema, zero param descriptions), the description carries enormous weight and covers the key flows: discovery, one-off invocation edge cases, install-vs-invoke decision, auth/wallet prerequisites, and the prompt library. Gaps remain on return/response formats (no output schema) and the behavior of params like immediate and conversation, so it's thorough but not exhaustive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it maps every action enum value to its behavior (search, describe, install, invoke, subscribe, cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, search_prompts, etc.) and explains the tool_id/arguments relationship ('every tool with its id + params'). However, several params remain under-specified (immediate, tier_slug, conversation, arguments format, prompt_vars) — inferred but not explicit.

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 opening states a specific verb+resource: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It clearly defines the scope (catalog + execution) and enumerates the action taxonomy (search/describe/invoke/install/etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and report_bug by positioning itself as the catalog-and-runner hub.

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 an explicit core flow ('action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile... → invoke RUNS that tool') and explicit when-to-use guidance with exclusions: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It also names alternatives (list_tools for what's callable now) and explains when the prompt-library actions are relevant, giving clear selection criteria.

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 idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds that the conversation array is needed for reproduction, implying data is sent for debugging. However, it does not disclose side effects, such as ticket creation or data storage. With annotations covering safety profile, the description provides moderate additional context but lacks depth.

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 concise sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and includes a key instruction about the conversation parameter, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It mentions only one parameter and omits guidance on the others. The tool is simple, but the description fails to cover essential parameter semantics, leaving gaps in the agent's understanding.

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 description only references the conversation parameter, but does not explain the required message field or the optional context field. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation, leaving the agent with limited understanding of how to construct valid 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. It uses a specific verb ('report') with explicit resource types, and it is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which focus on other operations.

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 purpose but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate, so usage context is implied rather than stated.

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. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: no platform credentials, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, official citizen-accessible data, non-confidential nature, and LGPD controller responsibilities. This 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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the subsequent sentences about payment, official-source status, and LGPD are all informative. The paragraph is slightly dense but contains no wasted sentences.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description omits parameter semantics and return-value expectations entirely. It gives commercial and legal context well, but it is not operationally complete enough for an agent to know what inputs to provide or what kind of result to expect.

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 6 parameters (ie, cpf, cnpj, identity fields) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention any parameter, accepted input format, or which identifier is required/preferred, so it adds no semantic meaning beyond the raw property names.

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 opens with 'SEFAZ PB: Certidão Negativa de Débitos, consulta em fonte oficial', naming a specific verb (consulta) and resource (certidão de débitos) in an official source. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools such as authenticate, connect, marketplace, 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 description provides useful context: hosted by the platform, no platform credentials needed, prepaid credits, and official non-confidential data. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so usage guidance remains largely 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 readOnly=true, idempotent=true, and destructive=false. The description adds no additional behavioral details (e.g., auth, rate limits). Since annotations cover safety comprehensively, the description is consistent and does not contradict them, so a high score is warranted.

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 redundant information. It is well-structured and directly states the tool's 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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description fully satisfies the need for context. It clearly states what the tool does without requiring additional explanation about return values or side effects.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description is complete without parameter details.

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 function: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It uses a specific action verb ('show') and a precise object ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), making it 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 purpose implies usage for checking version information, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. However, given its simple read-only nature, the context is sufficient. No explicit prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, so a small deduction for lack of 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what state is returned, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent know what to expect from the call.

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 that front-loads the core action and resource, then provides a concise but informative list of return contents. Every phrase earns its place, 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the tool returns. It does so thoroughly by enumerating installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is complete for the tool's informational purpose.

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 for the description to add beyond what the empty schema already shows. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because parameter semantics are not a concern here.

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 names a precise resource ('the current toolkit state'), then enumerates its contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which are action-oriented rather than informational.

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 clearly conveys when this tool is useful: when an agent needs to inspect the current toolkit state, such as installed MCPs, connection status, or accounts. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the informational scope is clear enough for an agent to avoid using it for connection or authentication tasks.

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