SEFAZ RJ: NFC-e Completa

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true.ReadOnlyHint=false, and the description explains the permanent vs session-only side effects, which adds behavioral context. It doesn't describe return values or error handling, but the idempotent hint is consistent with the session login scenario. No contradiction 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?

The description is a single block but well-organized: first states the purpose, then presents the two options (permanent config vs session token) with clear call patterns. It's a bit dense with links and code but not overly long. 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?

Given the tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains the two usage modes and what happens when called with no arguments (returns a link). It doesn't detail the exact response structure but enough for typical IDE agent usage. It could mention error cases, but that's not essential.

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 only 'token' with no description, so the description adds significant meaning: it specifies the format as JWT, shows example call syntax `{ token: "<jwt>" }`, and explains that omitting the arg yields a link. This fully compensates for the sparse 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 this tool authenticates for MCP.AI for IDE agents, with a concise overview of the two login modes (via config header or via pasted token). It also explains the no-args behavior for retrieving the auth link. The purpose is immediately understandable, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like '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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: adding token to server config for a permanent connection, or passing token as argument for session-only login, or calling with no args to get the link. It also mentions the user flow (paste token). It doesn't specify when to choose this over alternative auth tools, but the two modes are well-explained.

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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the conditional responses: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing.

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 and front-loads the core purpose clearly. It then adds the two relevant conditions efficiently, with no filler or redundant 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, this description is sufficient. It captures the primary success state and the missing-credential state, and it gives agents enough information to interpret the returned connection payload.

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 parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description does not need to clarify any parameter behavior, and no undocumented inputs 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's purpose: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' This gives a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes connect from sibling tools like authenticate by framing it as a status/read operation rather than an action. The expected output states also reinforce the intended scope.

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 tool is for checking connection/auth status, and it explains conditional output based on whether credentials are connected or missing. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus authenticate or other siblings, and it offers no exclusionary 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 description discloses behavioral aspects beyond annotations: writes require workspace owner/admin, invoke runs tools without installing them, install makes permanent changes, and billing/subscription actions are handled via subscribe/cancel. It also mentions that report_bug sends feedback and that prompts can be published without login, providing clear side-effect expectations.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose, but it is somewhat verbose, covering many edge cases in a single paragraph. It could be more concise by breaking into bullet points, yet every sentence adds value, and the structure (core flow → invoke vs. install → other actions → prompts) is logical.

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 (23 parameters, no output schema, multiple actions), the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the entire workflow, including authentication links, billing, admin permissions, prompt library operations, and edge cases like one-off invocation. No critical information is missing.

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 0% schema coverage, the description compensates fully. It explains the 'action' enum values (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.), clarifies the role of 'query' for intent-based search, and ties parameters like 'tool_id', 'arguments', 'prompt_body', and 'tier_slug' to their respective flows. The description effectively maps parameters to real use cases.

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 is the official mcp.ai marketplace for discovering, running, and managing MCPs and prompts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by covering the full lifecycle (search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, etc.) and explicitly lists capabilities like running tools on-demand and managing billing.

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 different actions (e.g., 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs. 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'), explains the core flow (search → describe → invoke), and clarifies when special links (connect/checkout) are returned. It also notes admin requirements for write operations.

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 idempotentHint=true号 destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe write operation. The description adds the instruction to include conversation for reproduction, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after submission (e.g., creates a ticket) or any side effects beyond the basic action.

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) with no fluff. It clearly states the action and provides a specific instruction about the conversation parameter. The structure is efficient and focuses on key 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?

The description gives enough context for a basic reporting tool, including the key requirement (conversation array). However, there is no output schema, so the agent doesn't know what to expect as a response. It also doesn't mention whether authentication is needed (though sibling 'authenticate' suggests so). Given the simplicity of the tool, it's moderately complete but could benefit from specifying what feedback to include in 'message'.

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 parameters are not described in the schema. The description mentions 'conversation array' and 'reproduction,' which clarifies the 'conversation' parameter's purposeGene, but the required 'message' parameter and optional 'context' parameter are not explained. The agent may not know exactly how to fill 'message' or 'context' accurately.

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 report a bug, missing feature, or provide feedback. It uses a specific verb ('Report'/'send') and identifies the resource/action. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, the siblings are unrelated (e.g., marketplace, tax query, version info), so 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 provides a clear context: use this tool when encountering a bug, needing a feature, or giving feedback. It also instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is a useful guideline. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or compare with alternatives, but given the unrelated siblings, this 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 annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds the risk-relevant details that the tool is official, paid per consultation, hosted by the platform, and returns public rather than confidential data. This is useful beyond the annotations, though there is no mention of response format, errors, rate limits, or output structure.

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 leads with the tool purpose and then adds the key implementation and compliance details. It avoids redundant examples, boilerplate, or repeated schema information, so every clause carries meaningful signal.

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 single-parameter read-only consultation tool, the description covers purpose, source, cost, and confidentiality reasonably well. The major gap is that it does not define the input format or mention the expected output, and there is no output schema to compensate for that.

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 is only one parameter, `nfce`, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not tell the agent what format to use, such as a 44-digit NFC-e access key, a sanitized key, a URL, or some other identifier; it only provides the general NFC-e context, so it fails to 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 that this tool performs a SEFAZ RJ NFC-e consultation using an official source, giving the agent a concrete verb and resource. It does not explain exactly what 'Completa' returns or explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but the sibling set is unrelated, so the main purpose is still clear.

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 explains operational context: no platform credentials are needed, each query uses prepaid credit, and the data is the same official data available to citizens. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool names, but for a simple query tool this contextual clarity is 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat these. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations, but for a simple read-only version tool, 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 a single sentence, concise and directly to the point with no unnecessary words or fluff, making it highly readable and front-loaded.

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 trivial informational tool, the description is complete enough to convey its core function. It does not mention output format or additional details, but without an output schema and with sufficient annotations, this is acceptable and does not leave critical gaps 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema fully covers all inputs. The description adds no parameter details, which is unnecessary; the baseline for zero parameters 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 the verb 'Show' and the resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions', making the tool's purpose specific and understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like toolkit_info, but 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without any context, exclusions, or mention of prerequisites, leaving the agent without direction on 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. The description adds behavioral context by specifying exactly what aspects of toolkit state are returned (MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts). No contradiction exists; the only minor gap is no mention of pagination or response shape, but annotations lower the bar.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It opens with the action and resource, then provides a compact, useful list of return details. Every word earns its 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 no-parameter read-only status tool, the description fully covers what the agent can expect from the output: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. No output schema exists, so the description appropriately carries the burden of explaining return content.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the input surface. The description does not need to add parameter semantics; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output instead.

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 the resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates concrete contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or authenticate.

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 indicates when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs the current toolkit state/overview. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is unambiguous enough that no strong alternatives compete.

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