SUSEP: Empresas

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: config header yields a permanent connection, while passing a token yields a session-only login, and no args returns a link. It does not fully spell out side effects or success/failure return values, but annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 and front-loaded, with no fluff, but the long single sentence with parenthetical clauses and multiple alternatives could be structured into clearer separate instructions. Still, every part adds necessary 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 one-parameter auth tool with no output schema, it covers the no-arg return (the link), the token-paste path, and the persistent-config alternative. It doesn't state the response on a token success/failure, but the invocation guidance is sufficient for an agent to call it 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the full burden for the optional `token` parameter. It explains that token is a JWT/access token pasted by the user and how to pass it, compensating well for the bare 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 clearly identifies the tool as MCP.AI authentication for IDE agents, with a concrete browser-login + access-token flow and two invocation paths (no args for a link, token for login). This specific verb+resource is unambiguous and easily distinguished from the unrelated calculo_* 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?

It explicitly differentiates the persistent config-header approach ('best... permanent, non-expiring') from the session-only paste/login path, and states exactly when to call with no args versus with { token }. This gives the agent clear selection criteria for both setup and invocation.

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 establish this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that by specifying the two main response states: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This helps an agent predict what to expect.

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, front-loads the core purpose, and then adds only the essential conditional details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and there is no waste.

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 is complete enough. It tells the agent what information will be returned, what the success condition looks like, and what happens when credentials are missing. The low complexity means no additional guidance is required.

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 any input semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter burden at all.

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 connection status and URLs. It distinguishes connect from its sibling authenticate by framing it as a status/read operation rather than an action, and the conditional output descriptions reinforce this.

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 that this is the tool to call when checking connection state or getting URLs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like authenticate, but the context strongly implies connect is for status checking rather than initiating authentication, so usage is clear without being 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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: invoke runs an MCP even when it is not installed, does a one-off run without adding the MCP to the toolkit, returns a connect link when credentials are needed, returns a checkout/top-up link when payment is needed, and requires workspace owner/admin for write operations. The description enriches the 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 front-loaded with identity and the core flow, and nearly every sentence carries useful guidance. However, it is one dense, wall-of-text paragraph with mixed language ("pontualmente") and heavy inline emphasis, which makes the many action alternatives hard to scan and parse.

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 complex 23-parameter, 14-action facade with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the core flow, one-off invoke semantics, auth/credential/payment behavior, permission requirements, installed flags, the prompt library, and most action outcomes. The main gaps are the resume action and return-shape details for a few actions, but the overall guidance is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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, the description does a lot of compensating work: it maps action values such as search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, publish_prompt, and explains tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related intent. However, several parameters and enum actions remain unexplained, including resume, limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, report_context, conversation, request_name, and request_details, leaving agents under-specified for those paths.

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 the official mcp.ai marketplace: the in-platform catalog of MCPs/tools and the way to run them. It states the core discovery→describe→invoke flow, distinguishes the prompt-library subdomain from the MCP flow, and makes it clear this is a marketplace orchestrator rather than one of the sibling calculator/authenticate 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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use install only to make an MCP permanent, prefer invoke for one-off use, use list_tools to see what is callable now, use subscribe/cancel for billing, and use request_mcp when nothing fits. It also explains what to do when invoke returns a connect link or checkout link, including retry behavior.

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 carry the safety profile with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that conversation data is needed for reproduction, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose what happens after submission, such as whether a ticket is created or whether the report is asynchronous, though the annotations lower the burden.

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 consists of two tight sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives the key usage instruction. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant 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?

For a simple three-parameter reporting tool with annotations already covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gaps are the unexplained `context` parameter and the absence of any indication of what the response or outcome will be, though no output schema is expected.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only clarifies the `conversation` parameter via 'conversation array with recent messages,' leaving the required `message` and optional `context` undefined. The agent must guess at their intended content.

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 verb 'Report' and explicitly enumerates three targets: 'bug, missing feature, or send feedback'. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and easily distinguishable from the sibling calculo_* and authentication tools, which serve entirely different functions.

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 establishes a clear context: use when a user reports a problem or wants to provide feedback. It also adds practical guidance to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' It does not name alternatives, but none of the sibling tools overlap with bug reporting, so exclusions are unnecessary.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating call. The description adds little beyond that—it names the output as versions but doesn't specify the format (e.g., semver strings, JSON object) or whether the output is human-readable. Since the annotations carry 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 sentence of 9 words, front-loading the action ('Show') and the object ('version'). There is zero waste, and it fully conveys the tool's purpose within its scope. This is a model of conciseness.

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, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. An agent can confidently invoke it without additional context. The only minor gap is that the return format is unspecified, but since there is no output schema, a brief note on the output structure (e.g., 'returns a plain-text summary') would elevate completeness. Still, the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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% (no properties). The description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description is consistent with that—it correctly implies that no input is required.

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: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all calculation or authentication tools. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'show' returns (e.g., a text summary vs. structured data), but the resource is 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 implies that this tool is for checking version information, which makes sense in contexts where an agent needs to confirm platform/adapter versions before proceeding. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention whether version information is needed for authentication or compatibility checks. Given the sibling tools are all calculations, the usage context is reasonably clear, but not explicitly delineated.

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 destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: the data is public/non-confidential, available to citizens from Brazilian official agencies, and the client is the LGPD controller. This clarifies the operational and legal nature of the query.

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 sentences with useful information packed in: purpose, hosting, billing, data provenance, and LGPD responsibilities. It is somewhat dense but contains no meaningless filler and front-loads the tool's core 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 read-only query with one parameter, the description covers purpose, data source, credentials, payment, and legal context. However, with no output schema, it does not indicate what the response contains or any matching behavior (e.g., exact vs. partial match on razao_social), leaving minor 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 has one required string parameter, razao_social, but schema_description_coverage is 0%. The description never mentions or explains this parameter, so the agent must infer meaning from the parameter name alone. The name is fairly self-evident, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 a specific action ('consulta') and resource ('Empresas' via SUSEP in an official source), which distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools. It could be more precise about exactly which company data is returned, but the core purpose is 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 provides useful context: it uses official sources, requires no platform credentials, and is paid via prepaid credits. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, and sibling tools are not referenced.

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 establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by detailing what kind of state is returned, including connection status and account bindings, which helps the agent understand the tool's informational 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?

A single tightly packed sentence with the main action front-loaded, followed by a colon-delimited list of return contents. Every phrase earns its place with no repetition 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know before calling: what information it will receive. No output schema exists, but the description essentially provides a light output contract by enumerating the returned components.

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 is empty with zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter burden. Per calibration, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4; the description's output-focused content is more than 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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is specific enough to distinguish it from computational siblings like calculo_* and action tools 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 clearly conveys that this is the tool to call when an agent needs an overview or snapshot of the toolkit's current state. It does not explicitly list exclusion criteria or name alternatives such as show_version, but the context is clear enough for routine selection.

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