SEFAZ RS: CADIN e CFIL

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the permanent vs. session-only login distinction, the browser flow, and the no-args behavior. It does not contradict the annotations, and the idempotentHint is consistent with a token-setting operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then details the two usage modes. It is slightly dense and run-on, but every clause contributes useful information without significant waste.

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 schema, annotations, and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential context: how to authenticate, the two login modes, and the no-args behavior. It does not describe the return value for a token submission, but this is a minor gap for an auth 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 schema only defines an optional string 'token', but the description explains that it is a JWT access token pasted by the user, and that omitting it returns the login link. This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the raw 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: authenticating an IDE agent by logging in via browser and providing an access token. It is specific about the action and resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from 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?

The description provides concrete usage guidance: either configure a permanent Authorization header or pass a token for session-only login, and call with no args to get the login link. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the in-tool usage modes are clearly 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail: the exact return conditions for authenticated:true vs connect_url and per-install URLs. It does not mention possible partial-connection states, but for a simple status tool this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, then a conditional example. Every sentence provides useful information with no repetition 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status endpoint, the description covers the primary return cases and the toolkit vs per-install URL distinction. A slight gap is the lack of an explicit partial-connectivity state, but this is minor 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and needs no additional explanation; the description correctly focuses on output behavior rather than 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate (mutating) and show_version/toolkit_info (informational, but not connection-focused).

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 clear context by describing behavior for two relevant states: all providers connected versus missing credentials. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it misses the top tier for usage 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?

No annotations contradict the description (readOnlyHint is false, consistent with write operations like install/subscribe). The description discloses significant behavioral details: invoke runs tools one-off without adding to toolkit, returns connect link if credentials needed, checkout link if paid and wallet empty, requires owner/admin for writes. However, it does not cover all actions' side effects (e.g., uninstall consequences) and assumes the agent understands the nuanced behavior description. Given the openWorldHint and destructiveHint false, the description adds value 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 lengthy but front-loaded with the core flow and key insight (invoke runs without install). It is structured logically, moving from core mechanics to access control to prompt library. While some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'MCP' and 'tool'), every sentence adds value the, making it information-dense rather than wasteful. It earns a 4 for being efficiently comprehensive.

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 extreme complexity (23 parameters, 14 actions, no output schema), the description does a strong job of covering the major actions and their behavioral nuances (install vs invoke, auth/payment handling). It also clarifies access control (owner/admin required). However, it does not explain return formats for each action or edge cases like resume, which might be necessary for full completeness. Still, as a high-complexity tool, it is more complete than most.

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%, but the description explains many parameters contextually (e.g., action values, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments) as part of the core flow. However, many parameters like prompt_vars, conversation, cancel_reason are only named in schema without description-level explanation. The description compensates partially for the zero schema coverage by embedding parameter usage in the narrative, so a baseline of 3 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 that this is the official marketplace for discovering and running MCP/tools, with a core flow of search → describe → invoke. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and report_bug by detailing its own actions. However, it is less a single-purpose tool and more a multi-action dispatcher, which could blur purpose but overall it is specific and resource-focused.

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: use search to discover, describe to get details, invoke for one-off runs, install for permanent additions, subscribe/cancel for billing, etc. It also clearly states that invoke works even when the MCP is not installed material, recommending invoke over install for occasional useenna. This goes beyond simple context, offering decision-making heuristics.

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 idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not contradict them. The description adds limited behavioral context, primarily the reproduction instruction. It doesn't explain what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation, response format), but with annotations covering safety aspects, a mid-range score 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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance. The description is front-loaded and 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 simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the primary purpose and one key parameter. However, it omits details about the remaining parameters and the expected response/return behavior. Given the tool's simplicity and annotations, this is a minimum viable description with clear gaps.

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 meanings. It explicitly explains the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'), but leaves 'message' and 'context' under-explained. The required 'message' is the core input and is not described, which 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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb+resource: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and show_version, making it easily distinguishable.

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 (bug, missing feature, feedback) and gives a specific usage directive: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but siblings are clearly different in scope.

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, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it's paid per query, official data, not confidential, and the client controls data under LGPD. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure about cost and legal responsibility that annotations don't provide.

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 of text combining multiple pieces of info: what it does, payment, official source, LGPD. It's not clearly structured or front-loaded with the core purpose. Length is moderate, but the lack of paragraph breaks or bullet points reduces readability. It earns a pass for not being verbose, but structure is suboptimal.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return value. It does not mention what data is returned or its format. It also ignores the parameters entirely, leaving the agent to guess how to construct a valid query. Given the tool's purpose (querying official records), it's incomplete for effective 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 input schema has two parameters (cpf, cnpj) with no description or enum. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention them at all. It fails to explain that either CPF or CNPJ can be provided, or any combination logic. The description adds no semantic value for 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 states 'SEFAZ RS: CADIN e CFIL, consulta em fonte oficial' which clearly indicates a query/consultation tool for these official records. It specifies the resource (CADIN/CFIL) and the verb (consulta). It distinguishes from siblings by being the only consult tool among them, though it doesn't name alternatives.

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 context: hosted by the platform, no platform credentials, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, and LGPD responsibility. It implies when to use (official source verification) but doesn't explicitly state conditions or alternatives. No exclusions are given, so it's somewhat helpful but not fully explicit.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description's 'Show' action is consistent with these flags. It does not add extra behavioral specifics beyond the version scope, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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—'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions'—front-loaded with the action and clear about the target. 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 parameterless, read-only version tool, the description adequately conveys the purpose and expected result. No output schema exists, but 'versions' implies a straightforward return. The lack of explicit differentiation from toolkit_info is a minor 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter descriptions are needed, and the description adds no extraneous information about non-existent 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 uses the specific verb 'Show' and identifies the exact resource: 'current MCP platform and adapter versions'. This clearly states the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like authenticate or marketplace, though a possible overlap with toolkit_info exists.

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 such as toolkit_info. It simply states what it does without context, exclusions, or suggestions for appropriate usage scenarios.

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's job is lighter. It adds value by specifying what exactly the state includes (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), giving the agent a precise expectation of the response without contradicting 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, information-dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific data points, making it immediately scannable and actionable.

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, no output schema) and the rich annotations, the description is fully complete for the agent's needs. It clearly states what will be returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) without requiring any additional 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage (trivially). The description correctly omits parameter details, and with no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 is appropriate. It does not need to add anything beyond what the schema implies.

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') with a precise resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates the exact components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like authenticate and connect, which serve entirely 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 an overview of the current toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternative tools like show_version. However, the purpose is self-evident and distinct from siblings, providing clear context without needing exclusions.

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