SENATRAN: Meus Veículos - Completa

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to contradict them. The description adds behavioral context: it explains the two modes (get link vs. paste token), mentions session-only versus permanent, and specifies the header format. However, it doesn't detail side effects (e.g., what happens on repeated calls) beyond idempotentHint. Fits well.

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?

Description is concise, well-structured, with clear modes of operation and context for IDE agents. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 authentication tool with one optional parameter accrual, the description covers the flow, options, and integration guidance fully. No output schema, but the description explains what happens (returns link or accepts token).

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 description explicitly explains the 'token' parameter: it's a JWT to be pasted for session login, or omitted to get a link. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property type. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates.

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 the user via browser login or token input. It specifies the exact action ('log in in the browser, copy the access token') and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' and 'show_version' by focusing on authentication 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?

Provides explicit instructions for when to call with no args (to get the link) vs. when to pass a token, and recommends adding to server config for permanent connection. Clearly explains usage in the IDE agent context and mentions both session and persistent options.

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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing conditional responses (authenticated:true vs connect_url) and mentioning URLs returned. 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and the conditional logic is explained efficiently.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what is returned and under what conditions. Nothing missing for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies since no parameters exist and the description doesn't need to explain any. The description appropriately focuses on behavior.

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 'connection status and URLs', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like authenticate. It unambiguously states what the tool does and its 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 clearly conveys context by explaining two states (all connected vs. missing credentials). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but context is clear. Sibling differentiation exists implicitly through its purpose.

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 the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses crucial non-obvious behaviors: invoke runs an MCP even when not installed (one-off, without bloating the tool list), returns connect links on auth needs and checkout/top-up links when the wallet is empty, flags installed_in_toolkit vs workspace, and requires workspace owner/admin for all writes. It also clarifies that the prompt library shareable link opens without login. 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 a dense ~300-word paragraph; although longer than typical tool descriptions, nearly every sentence adds necessary context for a 14-action router tool. It is front-loaded with identity and core flow, though scannability could be improved with bullet lists or section breaks.

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 tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description provides remarkably broad coverage: catalog search, describe, invoke execution, install/uninstall semantics, billing via subscribe/cancel, bug reports, MCP requests, and the separate prompt library. The only real gaps are the 'resume' action and a few less-common parameters, but overall the description is nearly comprehensive.

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 23 params with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the semantic load. It thoroughly explains the primary parameter, action, including its enum values and flow, and implicitly covers mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related params through the narrative. However, several parameters such as limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, and conversation are not individually explained, so compensation is strong but incomplete.

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 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them,' which precisely names the resource and its two core roles. It then enumerates the main flow (search → describe → invoke) and additional capabilities (install, list_tools, subscribe/cancel, prompt library), making the tool's scope unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or toolkit_info.

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 states when to use invoke vs install: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit.' It also gives a step-by-step core flow, conditional guidance for connect/checkout links, and role-based permission notes. This is strong when-to guidance, even though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 signal that this is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds useful reproduction guidance by asking for the conversation array. Still, it does not disclose what the tool actually does after submission (e.g., whether an issue is created, whether confirmation is returned) or any rate/contact 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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose and then provides a single, actionable instruction about including the conversation array.

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 and lack of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and one critical parameter. However, it leaves the meaning of 'context' unclear and does not mention what the agent should expect after invoking the tool, making it only minimally complete for a no-output-schema 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?

The schema has 0% described parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the 'conversation' parameter by asking for recent messages. The required 'message' parameter and the optional 'context' parameter remain unexplained.

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 ('report') and names the resources (bug, missing feature, feedback), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (auth, connect, marketplace, etc.) by stating exactly what kind of user-generated reporting it handles.

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 identifies when to use the tool and even instructs the agent to include the conversation array for reproduction. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, though none of the sibling tools overlap in purpose.

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 the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral and operational context: pay-per-query with prepaid credit, no platform credentials, official Brazilian source, non-confidential data, and LGPD controller responsibility. This substantially exceeds the safety profile already provided by annotations and does not contradict 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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is slightly repetitive: 'consulta em fonte oficial' and 'consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros' convey overlapping information. Still, each sentence adds some useful context around cost, credentials, or LGPD compliance.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter explanations, the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It gives good commercial and legal context, but omits required inputs and what kind of result will be returned, which is essential for a paid query 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?

The input schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. It never mentions the required renavam and placa, nor the optional login/certificate credential parameters. Since schema coverage is zero and the description offers no parameter-level meaning, the description completely fails 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 identifies the tool as a query/consulta for 'SENATRAN: Meus Veículos' against an official Brazilian source, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the generic sibling tools by emphasizing official-source data consultation rather than platform authentication or marketplace actions.

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 helpful context: the tool is hosted, requires no platform credentials, is paid per query with prepaid credit, and involves official non-confidential data. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving usage guidance implied rather than 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 safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what output to expect: versions of the platform and adapter. No contradictions 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, making it maximally 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?

Given the tool's simplicity—no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotation coverage—the description is complete. It states purpose and expected output, which is all an agent needs to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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 semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add; the output description 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 uses the specific verb 'Show' with a clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It is distinct from siblings like authenticate and connect, which serve entirely 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?

The usage is implicitly clear: use this tool when you need version information. However, the description does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this over the sibling toolkit_info, which could also be an informational tool. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by detailing exactly what the returned state contains (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which annotations do not provide. 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 a single well-structured sentence. It front-loads the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then uses a colon-delimited list to compactly enumerate the included details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's output.

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 zero parameters, existing annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what a caller needs to know. It explains all return components (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog tool counts) and matches the simplicity of the tool. No missing elements are significant.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and the empty schema requires no further explanation.

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 precisely identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') while enumerating what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like show_version, which focuses on version info. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 makes clear which context this tool serves: checking the toolkit's health and configuration. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but its read-only introspection nature and sibling list make it obvious when to use it. A small missed opportunity is not explicitly comparing it to show_version, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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