SEFAZ SC: NFC-e

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

Adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: explains session-only vs permanent non-expiring access and what happens when called with token or no args. Does not contradict annotations and covers the main auth nuances.

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 dense single paragraph without filler. Each sentence carries operational value. Could be split into bullets for readability, but there's no unnecessary 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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core workflow: browser login, token capture, permanent config vs session, and no-arg behavior. It doesn't explicitly mention errors or return value format, but that is not essential for this tool's primary use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has a single string token and no descriptions. The description compensates by specifying that token is a JWT pasted from the browser and that calling with no args returns for the login link.

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 the tool performs login/authentication for the MCP.AI server for IDE agents, with concrete steps: log in via browser, copy an access token, and either use it as a header or pass it as a parameter.

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 gives explicit, actionable context: permanent access via header config vs session-only login using the token parameter or no arguments to get a link. It doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools like 'connect', but the workflows are clearly described.

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail about the return values in different states (authenticated:true vs. connect_url), which is useful beyond the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return states and URLs. It could mention the format of URLs or the exact structure of the response, but for a simple status tool, it's sufficiently complete.

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 description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description focuses on the output behavior, which is appropriate for a parameterless 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 returns connection status and URLs, and explains the two possible states (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate and show_version by focusing on status and URLs, though it doesn't explicitly 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?

The description implies when to use it: to check connection status and obtain URLs when credentials are missing. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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 meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: invoke runs tools even when not installed (one-off execution, no tool-list bloat), install/uninstall and the one-off install behind invoke require owner/admin role, and get_prompt returns content that opens without login. It discloses a side-effect profile (writes, billing, auth) consistent with readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. No contradiction with the 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 content is dense and intentionally ordered (core flow → KEY exception → when-to-install → billing/feedback → prompt library), and nearly every sentence adds useful information, so there is little dead weight. However, it is a single rambling block of text with no bullet separation, which hurts scannability; an agent agent must parse a large paragraph to find the relevant action.

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, no output schema, many sub-actions), the description carries the full burden of explaining returns, auth, billing, and side-effect flows — and covers the major journeys (search→describe→invoke, install, subscribe, prompt library) well. Residual gaps: a sub-action 'resume' is present in the schema enum but never explained, params like 'limit', 'immediate', and 'conversation' are undocumented, and the description does not describe the shape of search/describe result lists.

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% across 23 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies semantics for a few (action values, query). Most parameters — immediate, conversation, tier_slug, cancel_reason, cancel_comment, report_context/description, prompt_body/slug/tool/vars/title/description/targets/category — receive no meaning in the description, and some (e.g., resume, conversation) are entirely absent from it.

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 opens with a specific statement of what the tool is ('the official mcp.ai marketplace — the marketplace/TA catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them') and the capability requests it covers ('find an MCP that does X', 'is there a tool for Y'). It names the core action flow (search → describe → invoke) and clearly differentiates its scope from the sibling tools (authenticate_tool, connect, toolkit_info, report_bug, show_version), even if not by explicit 'use X instead' phrasing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit usage direction for nearly every action: prefer invoke for one-off/occasional use, reserve install for making an MCP permanent, use list_tools to know what is currently callable, use subscribe/cancel for billing, report_bug for feedback, request_mcp for new tools, and search_prompts/get_prompt/publish_prompt for the prompt library. It also gives a concrete retry flow for auth and payment blocks ('user opens it, then you retry'), which tells an agent exactly when to expect a follow-up.

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 mentions the need to include conversation for reproduction, giving insight into expected input. Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description does not contradict them. It does not elaborate on side effects or outcomes, but that is acceptable for this simple action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes an actionable instruction. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary 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?

The description covers the primary purpose and mentions the conversation parameter, but it does not explain the 'context' or 'message' parameters, nor does it specify any constraints or outcomes. Given the minimal schema, it is partially complete but lacks full clarity.

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 three parameters (context, message, conversation) with no descriptions, and the tool description only explains the 'conversation' parameter (as an array for reproduction). The meanings of 'message' and 'context' are left ambiguous, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 also gives a specific instruction about including conversation data for reproduction, which enhances 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 implies when to use the tool (when encountering a bug or wanting to give feedback) and provides guidance on including conversation messages. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state exclusionary conditions.

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?

Beyond readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds valuable context: hosted by platform, no credentials needed, pay-per-query via prepaid credit, and data is official and non-confidential. It also discloses legal responsibility (LGPD/data controller). This enriches the annotation info significantly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, dense sentence but front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs payment, data source, and LGPD aspects efficiently without excessive verbosity. Slightly complex due to multiple clauses, but still 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?

For a single-parameter read-only query with no output schema, the description explains the data source (official, same as citizen), payment model, and legal aspects. It doesn't detail the return structure, but 'consulta' implies retrieval of invoice info. Given simplicity, this is adequate, though it could mention what the response contains.

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 only one parameter 'nfce'. The description mentions 'NFC-e' in the opening, which implies the parameter is the invoice identifier, but it doesn't specify format (e.g., 44-digit access key) or required structure. Since coverage is low, the description partially compensates but lacks explicit 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 clearly states 'SEFAZ SC: NFC-e, consulta em fonte oficial' - a specific verb (consulta) and resource (NFC-e from SEFAZ SC). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) which are platform utilities, while this is a domain-specific data query.

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 implicitly conveys usage context: it's for querying official Brazilian NFC-e data, with payment model (prepaid credit) and no platform credentials. However, it doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or alternative tools, though siblings are unrelated, so 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds specificity by stating it shows 'MCP platform and adapter versions,' providing more information than the annotations alone. No contradiction.

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. It conveys the necessary information without any fluff. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 version-check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly states what the tool shows (platform and adapter versions). Could mention return format but not necessary for such a trivial tool. Annotations already provide safety semantics.

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 parametersaineita schema coverage is 100% by default. With no parameters, the baseline is 3, but since there are none, the description doesn't need to add anything. The description is clear about what the tool does, so a score of 4 is warranted.

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 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions' uses a specific verb ('show') and clearly identifies the resource (MCP platform and adapter versions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' which likely provides broader information, and from actions like authentication or bug reporting. Purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's 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?

The description states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. However, the simplicity of the tool and the clear read-only nature (annotations) make the usage context obvious—checking versions. Still, there's no explicit mention of when not to use it or comparison to siblings like toolkit_info, so it's adequate but not 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds context about what specific information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which exceeds what annotations provide alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and lists key details without redundancy. It is concise and every word adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear summary of the return value (catalog tool counts, accounts, etc.), which is sufficient for an informational tool. It does not need to explain more since the scope is well-defined.

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 description does not need to provide parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly focuses on what the tool returns, which is sufficient.

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 the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on state information, which is distinct from actions like authenticate 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 implies when to use this tool: when you need an overview of the toolkit's current state. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tools are actions (authenticate, connect, etc.) rather than informational.

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