SEFAZ SP: Débitos de Veículo

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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: the browser login flow, the session-only nature of pasted tokens, and the permanent non-expiring option. It does not elaborate on what the response looks like after a successful token authentication, but this is not required given the simple auth scope.

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, and both permanent and session-only paths fit into one sentence. The phrasing is slightly awkward ('log in in the browser') and could be tightened, but every piece of text 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 one-optional-parameter authentication tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: browser login, token paste, no-args link retrieval, and permanent vs session behavior. It loses a point because it never states what the tool returns after a token-based call or how failures surface.

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 only defines 'token' as a string with zero description coverage. The description compensates fully by identifying the token as a JWT, showing the exact call shape ({ token: "<jwt>" }), and clarifying that omitting it returns the link. This is exactly the meaning an agent needs.

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 tool authenticates MCP.AI for IDE agents and explains the browser/token flow. It gives specific instructions ('log in in the browser, copy the access token') and distinguishes this from the other tools by making the authentication scope explicit.

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 when-to-use guidance: use the config header for a permanent connection or paste the token for a session-only login. It also explains the no-args call path to obtain the link, leaving no ambiguity about the available invocation modes.

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 clear. The description adds value by explaining the two output states (authenticated:true vs. connect_url) and the per-install URLs, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It explains the two states without redundancy. Perfectly concise for a zero-parameter tool.

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 params, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the return values (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and the conditions for each state. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that this is a read-only operation, but annotations cover that. For a status-check tool, this is sufficient.

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 baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output behavior instead. It doesn't waste space on 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 the tool's purpose: it returns connection status and URLs, and explains the two possible states (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate (which likely initiates connection) and show_version/toolkit_info (which provide other metadata).

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. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (authenticate) makes the usage clear. A slight gap is not mentioning that this is a read-only status check, but that's covered by annotations.

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 only cover readOnly/world/destructive/idempotence; the description goes far beyond that by explaining the crucial nuance that invoke_run runs even when not installed, returning connect/checkout links when auth or payment is missing, and by distinguishing installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags. It also discloses that writes require workspace owner/admin, which adds meaningful non-obvious behavioral context the annotations cannot express.

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 but not bloated; it front-loads the core purpose and then builds a coherent action flow. Extra detail about prompt library and auth requirements is relevant and placed sensibly. A small portion (the trailing list of sibling-like sub-tools) edges into reference-manual territory, so it doesn't earn a 5, but every sentence carries meaningful 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?

For a 23-parameter, no-output-schema, stateful hub-like tool, the description is unusually thorough: it covers lookup, execution, installation, billing link flows, auth, and prompt library commands. It does not document every optional parameter or give a precise return-on-error envelope, but given the broad intrinsic complexity and the lack of output schema, this is a strong, nearly complete walkthrough.

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% schema_description_coverage and 23 params, the description takes on the heavy lifting and does a solid job of explaining the central params via its categorical breakdown: query/action/mcp_id/tool_id/arguments for the core flow, plus the prompt_* params for the prompt library. It doesn't enumerate every parameter (limit, tier_slug, request_details/cancel_reason etc.), so it falls short of 5, but it excels far beyond the schema for the primary action dimension.

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 verb+resource ('the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them') and enumerates its distinct action modes, going well beyond a vague generic purpose. It differentiates from siblings like authenticate/connect by positioning this as the catalog/execution layer of MCPs, not an auth or billing utility. The core flow (action=search → describe → invoke) is unambiguous and mnemonic.

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 is exemplary on when-to-use: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and explicit coverage of capability requests ('find an MCP that does X'). It also names sibling-family operations and their purposes ('list_tools lists what is callable right now'; subscribe/cancel handle per-MCP billing), effectively routing the agent to each branch of the 14-action enum.

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 indicate idempotent=true and destructive=false, but the description adds no extra behavioral details. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not elaborate on side effects or outcomes beyond the basic purpose.

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 redundant words, achieving high information density.

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 main purpose and one parameter's usage, but lacks details on the other parameters and any expected return or side effects. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but could be more 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description only explains 'conversation' for reproduction, leaving 'context' and 'message' undefined. With low coverage, the description should compensate but only partially does.

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: reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) by focusing on issue reporting.

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 instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction, giving a clear when-to-use hint. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context 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?

The description discusses legal aspects (LGPD, data control) and that it's not confidential data, but does not disclose behavior like potential rate limits, failure modes, or that it may require external authentication (login_cpf/pkcs12_cert params suggest login may be needed). Annotations only indicate read-only and idempotent, which align with the 'consulta' term. The description adds some transparency about data sourcing, but misses critical behavioral details like the need for credentials or login process, which are not obvious from the description.

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 with multiple sentences, but it is not front-loaded with the most critical information – it jumps into legal disclaimers and hosting details after the purpose. Each sentence adds some value (source, credentials, payment, LGPD), but it could be more structured with a clearer hierarchy. It's appropriate in length but could be improved by leading with the tool's core function and typical usage.

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 simplicity of the operation (consult debts), the description covers the source and legal context but misses key aspects: the required parameters (placa, renavam) are not explained, the optional login/certificate parameters are not mentioned, and there is no mention of how results are returned (no output schema). The description is not complete for an agent to use it effectively without additional context.

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%, and the description provides zero parameter details. The schema has 6 params including 'placa' and 'renavam' (required, but no format or semantics explained), and optional login/pkcs12 params that are not described. The description does not compensate at all for the missing parameter info.

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: 'SEFAZ SP: Débitos de Veículo, consulta em fonte oficial' – a specific verb ('consultar') and resource ('Débitos de Veículo') with the source (SEFAZ SP). It distinguishes from siblings by indicating it's a query for vehicle debts, while siblings are generic (authenticate, connect, etc.). However, it doesn't explicitly compare to other data consultation tools, but given the sibling list, it's quite distinct.

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 context on when to use: to consult vehicle debts from an official source, with no credentials required for the platform出力? Actually, it mentions 'sem credenciais da plataforma' and payment via prepaid credits, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. It implies usage for legitimate purposes under LGPD, but lacks explicit when-not 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=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description slightly adds by specifying that both platform and adapter versions are shown, but doesn't disclose much beyond that, like output format. Since annotations cover the safety profile, 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, concise sentence that clearly states what the tool does. It is appropriately front-loaded and has no unnecessary words 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, and clear read-only annotations), the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent exactly what information the tool retrieves, and no further details are needed for such a simple utility.

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 description does not need to explain any parameter semantics. The schema is empty, so the description doesn't add parameter meaning, but since there are no parameters, the baseline is 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 that the tool shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions, which is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like 'toolkit_info' (likely broader info) and 'connect' (connection setup). It uses a clear verb and resource.

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 that the tool is used when one needs to know version information, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus other tools, nor does it mention any alternatives. It's adequate but lacks explicit 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=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable context by specifying the precise contents of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is especially useful since no output schema exists. It goes beyond the annotations without contradicting 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 concise sentence with a clear subject-verb-object structure. The colon introduces a parallel list of specific details. Every word contributes meaning, and the most important information ('Returns the current toolkit state') is front-loaded for quick scanning.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies what the agent can expect to receive. It details the categories of information (MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog counts), which is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call this tool. No critical information is missing.

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 accepts zero parameters, and the schema fully documents this (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description helps clarify the tool's purpose, which indirectly disambiguates the empty parameter list.

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 'Returns' and identifies the exact resource: 'current toolkit state.' It lists four concrete elements (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), making it immediately clear what the tool does and distinguishing it from siblings like show_version or authenticate, which 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this for state inspection' or comparison with siblings like show_version or connect. The description implies the read-only inspection use case but does not provide explicit instructions or exclusions.

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