SEFAZ SE: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Annotations already indicate read-only false, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds context on the two operating modes (config header vs. token parameter) and that calling with no args yields a link, but does not disclose return format or any side effects beyond what annotations imply. Since annotations cover safety, the added detail justifies a 4.

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 long, front-loaded with the purpose and then detailed options. It is concise but packs necessary information without fluff, earning a 4 for structure.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers both login flows, explains how to obtain the token, and how to invoke the tool. The presence of annotations and the tool's simplicity allow this level of completeness.

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

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

The schema only defines 'token' as a string. The description explains the token is a JWT and specifies when to pass it: after the user pastes it, or omit to get the link. This adds meaningful usage semantics beyond the 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: authenticate for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.) via browser login and access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by clearly focusing on authentication, with specific instructions for both permanent and session-based login.

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

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

It provides clear when-to-use guidance: recommends adding the token to server config for permanent connection, or using the token parameter for session-only login, or calling with no arguments to get the login link. This explicitly covers alternatives and steps.

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 useful behavioral context: it explains the two states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and what the response contains (authenticated flag, pending array, connect_url). This goes beyond the annotations by describing the conditional behavior.

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 main purpose, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently covers the tool's behavior without 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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the two possible states and what URLs are returned. It could mention the format of the URLs or the exact structure of the response, but for a status-check tool with no parameters, this is adequate.

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 schema provides no parameter semantics. The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns and under what conditions, which is the relevant semantic information for a parameterless tool. A baseline of 4 is appropriate given the zero-parameter case.

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 distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate and show_version by focusing on status/URLs rather than performing authentication or showing version info. It could be more explicit about the resource being 'connection status' but the verb 'returns' and the specific details make it clear.

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 get URLs when credentials are missing) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the sibling tools, it could have noted that authenticate is for initiating connections, but the context is reasonably clear.

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 substantially expands on the annotations by revealing key behaviors: invoke works even without installation, does not bloat the tool list, returns connect links for missing credentials, returns checkout/top-up links for paid tools, and requires owner/admin for writes. It does not contradict the annotations, and the openWorldHint is appropriately reflected in the broad catalog behavior.

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 long but information-dense and every section earns its place: core flow, temporary vs permanent invocation, billing/auth implications, write permissions, and the prompt library. It is not formatted as concise bullets, but the paragraph structure is acceptable for a multi-action tool and the KEY sentence front-loads the most important behavior.

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 high complexity (14+ actions, 23 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main flows well and supplies enough context for selecting the right action. It leaves some return-value details and parameter mappings vague, but for a tool this broad, the level of completeness is solid.

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% with 23 parameters, so the burden is on the description. It adds important meaning for action values, the action=search -> describe -> invoke flow, and the role of tool_id and prompt_vars. However, many parameter names are still only implied or not explained at all (limit, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, report_context, prompt_targets, request_details, etc.), so the description only partially compensates for the schema's silence.

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 in-platform catalog and execution layer for MCP/tools. It names concrete verbs and resources (search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe/cancel, prompt-library actions) and explains what each does, which strongly distinguishes the tool's broad but well-defined scope.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and names alternatives: use invoke for one-off runs, install only for permanent toolkit additions, list_tools for what is callable now, request_mcp for missing capabilities, and search_prompts/get_prompt for prompt text. It also flags prerequisites like workspace owner/admin for writes.

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 readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by mentioning the conversation array for reproduction, but it doesn't elaborate on side effects like confirming submission or potential latencies. Since annotations cover the non-destructive and idempotent traits, the description's limited extra context is adequate but not rich; hence a 3.

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 purpose, followed by a specific repro instruction. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. It is efficiently structured.

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 low complexity (3 params, no output schema) and the presence of annotations that convey safety and idempotency, the description is fairly complete. It states the action and the key input requirement. It could have mentioned that the tool submits data to a development team, but that's implicit. Overall, it covers the essential aspects for a straightforward reporting 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for all three parameters. The description partially compensates by explaining that 'conversation' holds 'recent messages for reproduction,' giving it meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't clarify 'message' or 'context' beyond what their names imply. This is a moderate compensation for the lack of schema descriptions, warranting a 3.

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, and it distinguishes itself from all sibling tools which are unrelated (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.). No ambiguity remains.

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 guidance on when to use: when reporting a bug or feature request, and instructs to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but since no sibling operates similarly, the usage context is clear. It earns a 4 because it gives a concrete instruction for an effective usage pattern.

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 mark this as read-only and idempotent, so the description effectively adds context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, costs prepaid credit per query, exposes public (non-confidential) data, and makes the customer responsible for LGPD compliance. This goes well 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function, and each following sentence adds meaningful operational, legal, or data-related context. No wordy filler or repeated schema information.

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?

With three optional-looking parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify query formation and expectations, but it does not. It gives good legal/operational context but omits critical usage composition and return/error behavior 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?

Input schema shows only three strings (ie, cpf, cnpj) with no descriptions or required fields. The description does not explain these identifiers, their formats, or whether exactly one is required. Coverage is 0%, and the description offers no compensatory guidance for choosing a parameter.

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 immediately identifies the tool as a consultation of SEFAZ SE's official Certidão de Débitos. The verb 'consultar', the resource 'Certidão Negativa de Débitos', and the official source provide clear, specific purpose that distinguishes it from the unrelated 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 context is reasonably clear: this is an official Brazilian source query that uses prepaid credits and involves LGPD responsibility. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it explain when not to use it or whether a specific credential is required.

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 annotation already marks it as readOnly, idempotent, and not destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it retrieves both platform and adapter versions, which is useful but not extensive. No conflicting behaviors mentioned.

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 without any unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easily parsed.

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 provides sufficient context for a no-parameter version tool. It specifies the exact information returned (platform and adapter versions) and the annotations cover operational safety. No further details seem necessary.

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, and the schema is fully covered (empty object). There is no possibility of misuse, so the agent can safely invoke it without any parameter concerns.

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 action ('Show') and specific resources ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info' by focusing solely on version information.

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 used to retrieve version information, but does not explicitly state when it should be used over alternatives (e.g., toolkit_info). Given its simplicityhols, this is adequate, though a more explicit note on intended scenarios would improve it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description fully aligns with those constraints. It adds meaningful context by specifying exactly what information is returned, including connection status and per-MCP catalog tool counts, going well beyond the annotation fields.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence communicates the tool's purpose and output scope without redundancy or filler. Every clause adds useful information.

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 has no parameters, strong read-only annotations, and a clear output enumeration in the description, the tool definition is fully self-contained. No output schema is needed because the description already specifies the main return categories.

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. The description correctly focuses on the return value rather than parameter details, which are nonexistent.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') along with its key contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate/connect, which focus on actions rather than state inspection.

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

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

The description clearly conveys when this tool is appropriate: whenever the agent needs an overview of the toolkit's installed MCPs, connection statuses, or associated accounts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous enough that a capable agent can select it correctly.

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