SEFAZ RO: IPVA

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds key behavior: it can be called without args to obtain a link or with a token to perform a session login. It also mentions the permanent configuration option. This explains the tool's effects beyond the annotations, which is helpful, though it doesn't explicitly state side effects like resetting an existing 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?

The description is a bit lengthy but well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It condenses multiple options into a single paragraph without excessive fluff. Every sentence provides useful info, though it could be tightened slightly.

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?

Considering the tool's complexity (authentication flow with two modes), the description covers the call variants, the permanent configuration option, and the target audience. It does not need to cover output since there is no output schema. It gives enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly, though it could mention what the response looks like (e.g., success 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 has no description for the 'token' parameter and a coverage of 0%. The description compensates fully: it explains the token is optional, describes its format (JWT), and clarifies the behavior when omitted (returns a link) vs. when provided (session login). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 the tool's purpose: to authenticate MCP.AI for IDE agents. It specifies the actions (log in, copy token) and distinguishes from unrelated sibling tools like connect or marketplace. The description is specific about the resource (server for IDE agents) and being detailed.

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 instructions: call with no args to get a login link, or with a token for session login. It also suggests an alternative permanent configuration via header, which is a clear usage alternative. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the context and instructions are 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by explaining the conditional behavior (authenticated:true vs connect_url). However, it does not detail response format or error cases beyond missing credentials, and it doesn't mention if it makes network calls that could have rate limits.

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, each with a clear purpose. The first states the general function, the second explains conditional behavior. No wasted words, early mention of the primary output ('authenticated:true'). Well-structured and 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?

Given no parameters and a simple read-only operation, the description covers the essential behaviors: what it returns (status and URLs) and when it returns what (connected vs missing credentials). It also mentions per-install URLs, which is a key detail. It could mention whether it returns error codes or if it includes provider-specific details, but overall it's adequate for a parameterless 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 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds meaning by explaining the conditions that affect the output (when all providers are connected vs missing credentials). With 0 parameters, the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it effectively explains the tool's two states.

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 returns connection status and URLs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate and marketplace by focusing on checking status rather than initiating auth. However, it could be more specific about the exact response structure (e.g., fields beyond authenticated and pending).

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 is used to check whether all providers are connected and to get connect URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like authenticate for actually initiating connection. It gives context but lacks explicit guidance on choosing between connect and authenticate.

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 substantial behavioral aspects beyond the annotations: it explains that invoke works even without installation, that it returns connect/checkout links under specific conditions, that install adds tools permanently, and that certain actions are restricted by role. It also covers the prompt library's separate behavior (publish returns a shareable link). The annotations (readOnlyHint:false, openWorldHint:true) are consistent with the description; no contradictions. This is richly transparent.

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 paragraph that packs in many concepts (core flow, install vs invoke, auth/payment handling, permissions, prompt library). While information-dense, it lacks structural organization (no bullets, headings, or bolded terms) and may overwhelm the agent. Every sentence adds value, but the sheer length (around 200 words) makes it harder to parse quickly. It could be split into sections or bullet points for better scannability, earning a middle 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 the tool's complexity (23 parameters, no output schema, no per-parameter documentation), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the end-to-end flow, conditional behaviors (auth, payment, permissions), the distinction between invoke and install, and the prompt library functionality. It also notes how to handle edge cases like missing credentials or empty wallet, and clarifies the role of list_tools, report_bug, and request_mcp. The description leaves little ambiguity about what the tool can do and how it behaves.

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 explains the key parameters indirectly through the action flow: query, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, immediate, tier_slug, and the prompt_* fields are all referenced in context (e.g., 'invoke RUNS that tool' implies tool_id and arguments). However, some parameters like limit, message, conversation, and cancel_reason are not individually explained, leaving ambiguity for those. Still, given the 23 parameters, the description covers the most critical ones sufficiently, though not exhaustively.

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, covering both discovery and execution of MCPs/tools. It enumerates concrete capabilities (search, describe, invoke, install, prompt library) and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating it is the in-platform catalog and the way to run them. The action enum further clarifies the specific operations, making the 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each action: it explains the core flow (search → describe → invoke), highlights the key distinction between invoke (one-off, no installation) and install (permanent), and notes when to prefer invoke over install. It also specifies requirements like authentication (returns connect link), payment (returns checkout link), and permission levels (writes require workspace owner/admin). This goes beyond mere context to active decision-making 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=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which cover the main safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral detail beyond the act of reporting, which is self-evident. It doesn't contradict annotations, so 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 exactly two sentences: one for purpose, one for usage. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence earns its place. No redundant or filler 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 simple feedback tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description gives the core purpose and usage hint. However, it lacks a full explanation of all parameter semantics, particularly the required 'message' field, leaving some gaps. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 explanations. It mentions 'conversation array' which maps to the conversation parameter, but it does not explain the required 'message' parameter or the optional 'context' parameter. This is insufficient for a 3-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 the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve different functions.

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 direct guidance on how to use the tool: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' This implies the tool is for providing feedback with context for reproduction. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but given the distinct purpose, this is acceptable.

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 clearly states that the tool is read-only, uses pre-paid credits, requires no platform credentials, and that data is not confidential. These details go beyond the annotations, which already indicate read-only and non-destructive. It also clarifies that the client is the data controller. There is 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, dense paragraph that packs in essential information about the source, payment, data privacy, and legal responsibility. It is not excessively long, but it could be more structured. The length is appropriate, but the lack of explicit parameter documentation and usage guidance reduces the efficiency.

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 that the tool is a simple query with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers key aspects like data source, payment, and legal responsibility. However, it doesn't provide details on the output structure or any prerequisites like the format of renavam, which could be crucial for correct 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 schema has only one parameter, renavam, which is required but has no description. The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must explain the parameter. The description does not mention renavam at all, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name. This is a significant 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 states that it queries SEFAZ RO IPVA from an official source, which is specific enough to distinguish it from generic query tools. However, it does not explicitly mention the resource (renavam) or the specific action (consultar) beyond the name, and the description is somewhat generic about 'information from sources and official bodies' without clarifying that it specifically returns IPVA details.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus others. The description mentions it consults official sources and that the client is the data controller for LGPD, but it doesn't provide context on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling tools include authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which are clearly different, but no explicit usage scenarios are given.

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 provide strong transparency with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint all set appropriately. The description is consistent with these hints and adds no conflicting information. Since the tool is read-only and side-effect free, the existing annotations adequately cover behavioral transparency, and the description does not contradict them.

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 unnecessary words or details. It is concise and to the point, conveying the tool's purpose efficiently.

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 (no parameters, read-only operation), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, and the annotations provide additional behavioral context. There is no missing information that would hinder understanding or usage.

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, as shown by the empty schema. The description does not add any parameter information, but the schema is fully covered (100%) since there are none. According to the rubric, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and since there is nothing to describe, this score 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 description clearly states what the tool does: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It uses a specific verb 'Show' and identifies the resource (MCP platform and adapter versions), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect' that serve different purposes.

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 one needs to check version information, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on specific scenarios or prerequisites, but for a simple informational tool, the implied usage 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?

Annotations already declare the operation as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds beyond that by specifying what state is inspected (MCPs, connection statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts) and uses 'current' to signal a snapshot rather than a persistent 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the output contents with a clear enumeration. There is no repetition of the tool name or title, and every phrase adds useful detail.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description sufficiently communicates the return value by enumerating the four categories of state it exposes. The tool is simple, has no parameters, and its annotations clarify its safety profile, so the description fully covers the context an agent needs.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter information for the description to add. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since no parameter semantics are needed.

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 exact resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the included information: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like show_version and 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 provides clear context by stating exactly what information the tool returns, so an agent can infer when to call it: whenever toolkit state is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the clarity of the purpose makes the usage context obvious.

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