SEFAZ TO: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the actual behaviors: calling with no arguments returns an authentication link, and passing a JWT enables a session-only login. It also highlights the permanence of config-based auth vs. session-based token, which is useful behavioral context for the agent.

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?

Three sentences cover all relevant behaviors without excessive verbosity. The structure is reasonable, although the first sentence is a little informal and mixes user instructions with tool behavior; the remaining sentences are well targeted.

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 is complete enough for an optional token that is optional and no output schema. It would be slightly better to describe the actual return value shape for the no-args case, but the phrase 'to get the links' already identifies the output in functional terms.

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 declares a single 'token' string with no description. The description compensates fully by explaining what the token is, that it is an optional JWT, and how to use it: call with { token: '<jwt>' }. The no-argument flow is also described, covering all execution scenarios.

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 makes it clear that this tool handles authentication for MCP.AI with IDE agents, including both generating a login link and accepting a session token. It is more instructional than a terse 'authenticate' statement, but the purpose and flow are well identifiable.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided for when to call with a token versus when to call with no arguments, and it encourages the permanent config alternative as the preferred method. This gives an agent clear options and effectively distinguishes between a session-only tool call and a non-tool setup.

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 guarantee that this is a read-only, idempotent operation. The description goes beyond that by explaining concrete response behavior: authenticated true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url when credentials are missing. That is meaningful behavioral context 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 three short, information-dense sentences. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: the general purpose, the successful connection response, and the missing-credential response. No filler 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?

For such a low-complexity, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the main expected return states and explains the URL fields the agent should expect, leaving little ambiguity for correct usage.

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 fully described of the input empty, so there is no parameter semantics gap. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is appropriate, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing 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 returns connection status and URLs, and then explains the two relevant output states (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). This distinct behavior differentiates it from siblings like authenticate, which likely performs the actual connection flow.

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 strong context about what the return values look like, but it does not explicitly say when to call this tool instead of an alternative such as authenticate. The intended usage is implied rather than clearly defined with exclusions.

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 discloses key behavioral traits not in the annotations: one-off execution of invoke without installing, requirement for owner/admin on writes, and return of connect/top-up links. It also explains that search/describe flag installation status. These details complement the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and provide a rich behavioral picture. No contradiction with 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 long but information-dense, each sentence adds value. It is structured with a clear core flow and then lists actions in a logical sequence. The front-loading of 'official mcp.ai marketplace' and 'THE way to run them' sets context immediately. It could be more concise, but the complexity justifies the length; it avoids redundancy and maintains focus.

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 23 parameters and 14 actions, the description covers the main flows thoroughly (search/describe/invoke/install, subscribe/cancel, and the prompt library). It explains the output of invoke (connect/top-up links) but does not detail outputs for other actions (e.g., list_tools format, describe structure). It also glosses over some params like cancel_reason and resume. Yet it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and use the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 coverage, the description must compensate, and it does by explaining the meaning of key parameters through the action flow (e.g., action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments) and conditionals like 'invoke returns a connect link'. It covers the prompt-related parameters contextually (prompt_vars, prompt_targets) but does not enumerate every parameter explicitly. Given the complexity, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 it is the official MCP marketplace and catalog of tools, with a specific verb+resource: 'the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It explains the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate and connect by focusing on marketplace operations. It also covers the prompt library aspect, making its purpose comprehensive and unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and describes conditional behavior (connect link if credential needed, checkout if wallet empty). It also explains the core flow and specific actions (search_prompts, get_prompt, publish_prompt), giving clear context on when each action is appropriate. No exclusions are stated, but the guidance is highly actionable.

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 adds no behavioral transparency beyond the annotations. It does not explain what submitting a bug report does, whether it posts externally, whether duplicates are created, whether deduplication happens, or what the user should expect afterward. The idempotentHint=true annotation is also not supported or clarified by 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence contributes practical value. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 reporting tool, the description covers purpose and the key reproduction-related parameter, but it omits clarification of the `context` field, return values/acknowledgments, and behavioral side effects. Since there is no output schema, these omissions make the description only partially 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 description coverage is 0% and the description compensates only partially. It explains the purpose of `conversation` ('recent messages for reproduction') and implies `message` is the bug/feedback text, but `context` is left undefined and the description says 'conversation array' while the schema declares `conversation` as a string rather than an actual array.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It clearly communicates the tool's scope and is distinguishable from the sibling tools, though it doesn't highlight why it is the preferred tool over any 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?

Gives an explicit practical instruction: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' This provides useful context for when/how to use it, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool comparison.

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. The description adds beyond this by noting that no platform credentials are needed, payment is per query with prepaid credit, data is official and not confidential, and the client controls data per LGPD. These details enrich the behavioral profile 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 paragraph of about 40 words, covering multiple aspects (purpose, payment, data nature, legal responsibility). It is concise but not well-structured; it lacks clear separation of concerns, and the flow is somewhat stream-of-consciousness. Could be improved with bullet points or clearer segmentation.

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 is simple (3 optional parameters, no output schema), and the description provides useful context about payment, official source, and data handling. However, it omits parameter explanations and does not describe the expected return value (the certificate). Given the low complexity, this is moderately complete but has notable 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?

The input schema lists three parameters (ie, cpf, cnpj) with zero descriptions and 0% schema coverage. The description does not explain what these fields represent (e.g., which identifier is needed, whether one is required, or their formats). This leaves the agent without guidance on parameter usage, which is a critical 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?

The description clearly states it queries a negative debt certificate (Certidão Negativa de Débitos) from SEFAZ TO via an official source. It identifies the specific resource and action, distinguishing it from generic sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, 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 provides contextual usage guidance: it mentions the query is hosted by the platform, requires prepaid credit, and uses official Brazilian sources. It implies when to use it (when needing a debt certificate) but doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, so it's clear 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety. The description adds that it shows both platform and adapter versions, which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradiction. It does not specify the exact output format, but with no output schema, that might be acceptable for a simple version tool.

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, concise and to the point. It front-loads the purpose ('Show the current...'). No unnecessary words. Slight lack of structure but that's fine for a trivial 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 parameters, no output schema, read-only, idempotent), the description is adequate. It tells the user what they will get (versions) but not the exact format. However, for a version tool, the description is sufficient; completeness is high enough for the 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameters. According to the rubric, a tool with 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4. The description correctly implies that no input is needed.

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: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('show') and a resource ('versions'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'toolkit_info' or 'connect'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from potential similar tools, but given the sibling list, it is 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 implies usage: when you need to check versions. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the sibling tools, it would be helpful to mention that this is for version information, not configuration or connection. The context is clear 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?

The description discloses the exact kind of state information returned, which complements the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It adds context beyond the annotations by explaining what 'toolkit state' includes.

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 listing all the key components of the returned state. It is well-structured and free of redundant 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?

The description provides enough context to understand what the tool returns, covering all major aspects: MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. No ambiguity remains.

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 there is no parameter semantics to describe. The schema coverage is complete (100% with no params), and no additional explanation is needed.

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: returning the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives, but it is clear that it is an informational read-only tool. The lack of alternatives and the simple retrieval nature make the usage inferable, though not explicitly guided.

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