SEFAZ RJ: NFC-e Resumida

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

The description discloses useful behavioral details beyond annotations: permanent vs. session-only authentication, how the token is accepted, and that no-args returns a link. It does not contradict the idempotentHint, though it could say more about failure modes or the exact response after submitting a token.

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?

Three sentences cover all essential information: the login flow, the permanent configuration option, and the session-based invocation. Every sentence adds meaningful guidance, and the structure front-loads the purpose before explaining options.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains both invocation paths and what to expect from the no-args path. It stops short of describing the success response for the token-submission path, which would improve 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 schema provides only a bare optional string 'token' with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that token is a JWT from the browser, how to pass it, and that omitting it triggers a login-link response, which is exactly the semantic context an agent needs.

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 an authentication/login mechanism for MCP.AI in IDE agents, stating the browser login and access token workflow. It explicitly covers two call modes and distinguishes this from simple token storage via config, making the tool's purpose 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?

It provides clear usage context: permanent connection via config header, session-only login via token parameter, and no-args to get a login link. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'connect', but the guidance is actionable and specific enough for an agent to decide how to invoke it.

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 the exact behavior: it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[] when all providers are connected, or connect_url and per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This adds significant detail beyond the readOnly and idempotent 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 sentences that clearly articulate the tool's function and conditional behavior. No unnecessary verbiage is present.

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 fully explains the expected output for the two relevant scenarios, including details about toolkit and per-install URLs. It provides sufficient context for a simple read-only status check without 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 complete. The description does not add parameter-related meaning because none exist, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 explains the two possible outcomes. It is specific to checking connection status, distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version.

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 use for checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks direct guidance on when it is appropriate to call this 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 are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the transparency burden — and it delivers richly. It discloses the one-off execution side effect of invoke (no toolkit bloat), the auth boundary ('Writes require workspace owner/admin'), the credential flow (connect link), the payment flow (checkout/top-up link then retry), and that the prompt link opens without login. 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?

Every sentence earns its place given the 14-action, two-domain complexity, but the text is a single unbroken wall of paragraph with no section breaks. The marketplace flow, billing/feedback operations, permission rules, and the separate prompt-library feature are conflated into one dense block, making it harder to scan than the content warrants.

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 high complexity (23 params, 14 actions, two feature domains, no output schema), the description is remarkably thorough: it covers the core flow, install-vs-invoke semantics, permissions, credential and payment edge cases, billing, feedback, new-MCP requests, and the prompt library's link behavior. The only gaps are the 'resume' action and a few params (immediate, tier_slug, conversation) that receive no explicit treatment.

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 all burden falls on the description. It explains the most important parameter semantics through the narrative — action values (all 14 enumerated via the flow), tool_id for invoke, mcp_id, query for search intent — but leaves several parameters undefined: limit, immediate, tier_slug, message, conversation, request_name, request_details, prompt_category, prompt_description. It compensates for the top-level flow but only maps roughly 30% of the 23 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 names a specific resource (the mcp.ai marketplace — catalog of MCPs/tools) and states exactly what it does: enables searching, describing, invoking, and installing MCPs, plus a prompt library. It clearly distinguishes from siblings (authenticate, show_version, toolkit_info) by framing itself as the in-platform catalog and execution path, not a single-purpose operation.

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?

Offers explicit when-to-use guidance with named alternatives: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit', and maps each action to its scenario (list_tools for callable-now, subscribe/cancel for billing, report_bug for feedback, request_mcp when nothing fits). The core flow (search → describe → invoke) is spelled out step by step.

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=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the basic safety profile. The description adds the instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is more of a parameter usage note than a behavioral disclosure. It does not describe side effects like ticket creation or rate limits, but with annotations present, 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 only two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and includes a targeted instruction for reproduction. Every word earns its place 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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations. The description explains the purpose and one parameter (conversation) but leaves the required 'message' parameter unexplained, which is essential for a correct invocation. The mischaracterization of 'conversation' as an array also detracts from completeness. More detail on required fields and expected response would be needed.

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 bears the full burden of explaining parameters. It mentions the conversation field but omits the required 'message' field and the optional 'context' field. Additionally, the description calls 'conversation' an array while the schema types it as a string, creating potential ambiguity. This is a meaningful gap.

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.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from all sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.), none of which deal with bug reporting or feedback.

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 signals when to use this tool—whenever there is a bug, missing feature, or feedback to send. Although it does not explicitly state 'use this tool when...' or mention alternatives, the context is evident and the sibling tools are unrelated, so no exclusions are needed.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context about the cost model (prepaid credit per query), data source (same as available to citizens), and legal responsibility (LGPD). This goes beyond what annotations capture.

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 run-on sentence that mixes the tool's purpose with legal and financial caveats. While it is not excessively long, it could be broken into shorter sentences for better readability. Some clauses (e.g., LGPD responsibility) are important but could be more concise.

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 tool has only one required parameter, but the description fails to explain it, and there is no output schema. Since no output schema exists, the description should clarify what information is returned. It only says 'consulta informação' without specifying the response content, leaving a significant gap.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning or format of the required 'nfce' parameter. This is a significant omission because the agent has no way to know what to pass for 'nfce' (e.g., NFC-e access key or number).

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 a query operation for NFC-e Resumida from the official SEFAZ RJ source. It uses a specific verb ('consulta') and resource ('NFC-e Resumida'), and is clearly distinguished from the unrelated platform-level 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to query official Brazilian source data for NFC-e. It also mentions the payment model ('pague por consulta') and that no platform credentials are needed. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated platform utilities, so no exclusions are necessary.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as that it might require an active connection or that it returns version strings. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds minimal value; a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise, earning the highest 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?

The tool is simple, with no parameters, and the annotations provide safety information. However, the description lacks details on what exactly is returned (e.g., version numbers, format) and any prerequisites like an active connection. Given the simplicity, the description is adequate but could be slightly more informative about the output.

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 no need for parameter documentation. The schema covers 100% of parameters (none). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. A baseline of 4 is fair for a no-parameter tool.

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 what the tool does: it shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplace, which have different purposes. It could be slightly more explicit about the 'adapter' entity, but it's 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is likely a diagnostic or informational tool, but no context is given about scenarios where it would be helpful, such as debugging version mismatches or checking compatibility. Without usage hints, the agent may not know when to invoke it.

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, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds clarity on the return content (installed MCPs, connection status, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations but does not contradict them. This provides useful behavioral insight.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's output. It lists the key aspects without unnecessary details, making it concise and scannable.

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 simple nature of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate context about the returned state. It could be slightly more detailed about the format or structure of the returned information, but it covers the essential 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 no parameters, so the schema is fully covered. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and there is no additional parameter information to add. The description suffices.

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: returning the current toolkit state, enumerating specific elements like installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version 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 does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a query for state inspection but lacks guidance on scenarios or prerequisites. The usage context is left to inference.

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