SEFAZ RS: NFC-e (SVRS)

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

Annotations include idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and no destructive hint. The description does not contradict these, but it adds context about the login flow (browser, token, session vs permanent) which is beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether the tool has side effects beyond setting authentication state, but the annotations already hint that it's not read-only and is idempotent. Given the annotations, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral detail, 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 a single paragraph but well-structured, front-loaded with purpose and user audience, then clear instructions. It is concise, every sentence serves a purpose, and it avoids fluff. It might be a bit dense but is appropriately sized for the complexity of authentication flows.

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 1 optional parameter, no output schema, and moderate complexity for authentication. The description covers the token parameter and the two call modes, which is sufficient. It doesn't elaborate on return values, but with no output schema, the description doesn't need to. It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly, though additional details on what the response looks like could improve completeness. Score 4.

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 1 optional token parameter with 0% coverage, meaning no description in schema. The tool description clarifies that 'token' is the JWT to paste for session login, and that calling without args generates a link. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema, making the parameter semantics clear. The description effectively compensates for the low schema coverage, so score 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 tool's purpose: to authenticate MCP.AI for IDE agents, with a login flow involving a browser and token. It specifies the main use case and distinguishes it from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on authentication and token handling. However, it could be more explicit that this tool is the primary entry point for authentication, but it's clear enough.

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 explicitly provides usage scenarios: recommending adding the token to the server's config for a permanent connection, or pasting it here for session-only login. It also clarifies two invocation modes: with token argument after user pastes, or with no args to get the link. This is strong guidance on when and how to use the tool, including alternatives (config vs paste), meeting the 'when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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 read-only and idempotent, so safety is covered. The description adds state-dependent behavior (authenticated:true vs connect_url), which provides useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't explain 'pending[]' or partial connection states, so not a 5.

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 compact sentences front-load the core purpose and then specify conditional outcomes. No wasted words.

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 status tool, the description covers the key return scenarios. The absence of an output schema puts some burden on description to explain returns, which it does, but leaves minor ambiguities (e.g., meaning of 'pending[]' and 'per-install URLs').

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain any. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there are no schema gaps to compensate.

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 with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'), and differentiates from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than performing authentication. The two conditional outcomes add specificity.

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 the tool is for checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. There's no 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' 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 goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) by detailing that invoke runs tools even if not installed, returning connect/checkout links for auth/payment, and that writes require admin. However, it does not mention rate limits, error behaviors, or the exact consequences of install/uninstall beyond 'becomes permanent' and 'removed from toolkit.' The description does not contradict the annotations, and the mention of writes requiring admin is useful, but the depth is not exceptional.

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 dense and packed with information, but it is a single long paragraph with no structured breakdown (e.g., bullet points, sections) to ease scanning. It front-loads the general purpose and then flows into specifics, which helps, but the lack of structure may overwhelm agents. Each sentence adds value, but the overall length and stream-of-consciousness organization reduce clarity.

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, interactions with MCPs and prompts, billing/auth flows), the description covers most critical guidance: how to search, describe, invoke, and install; mention of installed_in_toolkit/workspace flags; billing actions; and prompt library specifics. However, it does not describe output formats or error handling, and the absence of an output schema increases the need for return value clarification. Thus, not perfect but well above average.

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 schema coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden. It explains key parameters such as action (via 'action=search', 'action=describe', 'action=invoke'), tool_id (select the right tool_id), arguments (implied by 'runs the tool'), and instant for specific actions. It also covers prompt-related parameters like prompt_slug, search_prompts, get_prompt, publish_prompt, and mention '{{variables}}' which maps to prompt_vars. For a tool with 23 parameters, this level of semantic detailing is excellent.

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 marketplace as the primary catalog and execution tool; it specifies that it covers a range of capability requests and describes the core flow (search, describe, invoke) and auxiliary actions. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'connect' beyond listing actions, and the broad scope (MCP management + prompt library) dilutes the single-purpose clarity.

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 strong guidance on when to use invoke vs install: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It also mentions list_tools for what is callable now, and subscribe/cancel for billing, and request_mcp for new MCPs. There is no explicit mention of alternatives among siblings, but the guidance for choosing among the tool's own actions is clear and direct.

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 provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool accepts a 'conversation' for reproduction, which hints at how the tool uses inputs. It doesn't contradict annotations. With idempotentHint=true, the agent might expect side effects are limited, and the description's focus on reporting fits that. The description adds value by specifying the conversation reproduction aspect, which is 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 just two sentences, which is concise. It front-loads the purpose and adds a specific instruction. No wasted words. It could be slightly more informative, but for its length it's efficient. A 4 is appropriate.

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 3 parameters with defaults, no output schema, and reasonably simple purpose. The description covers the main usage but doesn't explain the 'context' parameter or how the report is processed. Since it's a reporting tool with likely minimal side effects, the description might be sufficient, but adding what happens after reporting would improve completeness. Given the simplicity, a 3 is reasonable.

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 meaning. The description mentions 'Include the conversation array' but doesn't explain the 'context' parameter, which has a default empty string. It does clarify that 'conversation' is for reproduction, but 'message' and 'context' are not elaborated. Given 0% coverage, the description should do more; however, the schema already has defaults and types that provide some meaning. With 0% coverage, a 3 is fair but slightly generous because 'context' remains undefined.

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 specifies the verb ('report') and the resource (bug/feature/feedback), and the additional note about including the conversation array for reproduction adds useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, though none of the siblings appear to be similar reporting 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 implies when to use this tool (when reporting issues or feedback) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. The instruction to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction' is a usage guideline, but it doesn't compare against other tools. Given the siblings don't seem to compete with this purpose, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations: 'pague por consulta' (cost per call), 'sem credenciais da plataforma' (auth model), 'não é dado sigiloso' (data sensitivity), and LGPD controller responsibility. These traits are not present in annotations and help set correct agent 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?

Four concise sentences front-load the purpose, then cover hosting/cost, data classification, and legal responsibility. The LGPD sentence is slightly regulatory but still relevant for a data-consuming tool. Efficient use of space with no redundancy.

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 read-only query tool with 5 params and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, official source, cost model, auth requirements, data sensitivity, and legal framing. Lacks explicit guidance on parameter combinations and expected return shape, but these are not critical for basic 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% — none of the 5 parameters (nfce, login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, pkcs12_pass) are explained. Param names are relatively self-explanatory, but the description misses the opportunity to clarify semantics like which auth method to prefer or the format of nfce.

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 a query operation on official SEFAZ RS NFC-e (SVRS) data with 'consulta em fonte oficial'. It differentiates itself from generic platform siblings (authenticate, marketplace) but does not specify exactly what data is returned or the query scope beyond the resource name.

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 operational context: 'Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais da plataforma, pague por consulta' indicates when to use (paid hosted query, no platform auth needed), implying the authenticate sibling may not be required. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when NOT to use 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 does not add behavioral details beyond the annotations, but the annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, which is sufficient for a simple version display.

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 unnecessary details, making it well-structured and easy to understand.

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 clearly indicates the content of the output (platform and adapter versions), which is sufficient given the absence of 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?

No parameters are defined, so the baseline score of 4 applies.

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: showing the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It is specific and distinct from 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives, but its purpose is self-explanatory for retrieving version information.

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, non-destructive nature is established. The description adds value by specifying the exact state elements returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), but it doesn't go beyond that with additional behavioral traits like rate limits or error conditions. For a simple info tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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-crafted sentence that opens with the primary action and result ('Returns the current toolkit state:') followed by a clean, comma-separated list of the state aspects. Every word serves a purpose—there is no filler, no redundancy, and no repetition of information already in the annotations. This is a model of concise technical writing.

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 0-parameter, annotation-rich read-only state tool, this description is complete. It enumerates exactly what data is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts), and with no output schema and no parameters, there's nothing else to clarify. The agent can confidently decide whether to call this tool and what to expect from it.

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 parameters, the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage and the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps since none exist. The description and schema together are fully sufficient—there's nothing about parameters that could be improved.

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 resource ('current toolkit state') and lists exactly what's included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like connect, authenticate, and show_version, which serve entirely different purposes. The description is unambiguous and enumerates the return data comprehensively.

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 the use case—checking toolkit state across MCPs, connection status, and accounts—but never explicitly says when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is reasonably clear given that the sibling tools (connect, authenticate, marketplace) suggest a state-inspection workflow, but the description itself doesn't provide explicit guidance on selection.

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