Tribunal TJDF: Nada Consta

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral detail: calling with no args returns a link, and calling with a token triggers a session-only login. This clearly explains what the tool does in each mode, with no contradiction to 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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose. The middle recommendation about server config is slightly tangential but still earns its place as guidance, so it's well-structured and not wasteful.

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-parameter auth tool, the description adequately covers the two main usage modes. It does not specify the return value format, but that is not critical for this tool and not required by the schema.

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?

Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining the token parameter as a JWT for session login and clarifying that it is optional (no args yields a link). This is excellent semantic enrichment beyond 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 states the tool is for authenticating with MCP.AI for IDE agents, explaining the process of logging in and copying an access token. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'connect', so it misses the top score for sibling distinction.

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 usage scenarios: a recommended permanent config via header, and a session-only login via token or no-args to get a link. It provides clear context but no mention of alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it lacks the 'when-not' component.

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 the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable conditional behavior: it explains the authenticated:true state with empty pending[] and the missing-credentials fallback with connect_url, going beyond the annotation metadata.

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 and immediately front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful detail about output states, with no redundant or filler content.

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 rich annotations, the description fully covers the main output cases and return values. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit description of both possible result formats.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description focuses on output behavior rather than parameter details, which is appropriate since there is nothing to document about parameters.

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,' using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate by focusing on status reporting rather than initiating authentication.

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 clear context for when the tool is relevant: checking whether all providers are connected or retrieving connect URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the status-checking intent is evident and no exclusions are needed.

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 state openWorldHint=true with no readOnly/destructive hint. The description expands meaningfully: it reveals that invoke has a hidden one-off install behavior, explains the connect/checkout link side-effects, discloses the 'owner/admin' permission requirement for writes, and reveals that search/describe flag installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. It explains the billing lifecycle via subscribe/cancel. No contradiction with the sparse annotations — the openWorldHint=true is consistent with a tool that operates on the outside world of marketplaces and profiles.

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?

This is a dense, run-on paragraph that buries critical usage decisions mid-sentence. The key guidance ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use') could be a bullet point instead of being woven into the middle of a cascade of commas and arrows. The description jumps from marketplace flow to invoke internals to billing to permissions to prompt-library details without markdown, headers, or line breaks. While every sentence earns its place, the lack of any formatting for a 3-domain tool makes it mentally taxing to 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 tool of this complexity — 14 actions, 23 params, multiple side effects (installations, billing, prompt publishing) — the description covers the primary flows comprehensively: search→describe→invoke, install, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and all three prompt actions. It also covers the auth edge-cases and one-off execution. The few gaps are the 'resume' action, which is never mentioned (unclear if it belongs to subscribe or the prompt flow), and vague params like 'message' or 'conversation', which remain undocumented. The lack of an output schema means the reader only learns return shapes for a few actions (get_prompt, publish_prompt).

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 and 23 free-form parameters (no descriptions), the burden is on the description. It directly explains actions like 'search,' the difference between describe/invoke semantics, and the prompt-actions' return values: 'get_prompt returns its full text with {{variables}} filled, and publish_prompt saves a prompt and returns a shareable mcp.ai/p/<slug> link.' It covers tool_id and arguments ('every tool with its id + params'). However, it never touches on ~1/3 of parameters (cancel_reason, report_context, conversation, resume action), which remains a gap given the schema offers zero hints on its own. So close to a 5 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 opens with a clear statement that this is the marketplace catalog and runner of MCPs, then uses specific verb+resource pairs for every capability: 'action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile → invoke RUNS that tool,' plus 'search_prompts finds one, get_prompt returns its full text.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by explicitly calling out that 'report_bug sends feedback' and explaining how this catalog relates to permanent toolkit installation. The description of the catalog's scope (MCPs AND a prompt library) leaves no ambiguity about its dual purpose.

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?

Explicitly says when to invoke vs install: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit.' It gives decision support: 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed,' 'If the MCP needs a credential/login, invoke returns a connect link; if it is paid and the wallet is empty, invoke returns a checkout/top-up link.' It also distinguishes the prompt library as being 'about ready-made prompt TEXT rather than MCPs' and specifies that 'Writes... require workspace owner/admin' — clear user-role and auth statements.

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 does not contradict the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false). It adds a minor behavioral hint by mentioning the conversation array for reproduction, but it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or the outcome of the report.

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 concise (two sentences), directly to the point, and contains no irrelevant information. It flows well and is easily understood.

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 with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and hints at the conversation parameter, but does not explain the 'context' field or the expected format of 'message'. It is adequate but not fully 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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'conversation' parameter (for reproduction), but leaves 'message' and 'context' undefined. This is partial compensation, not full.

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 also differentiates from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) by being the only one focused on feedback/bug 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for reporting issues) and even gives a specific usage instruction (include the conversation array for reproduction). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but given the sibling tools, it is unambiguous.

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, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that versions of platform and adapter are shown, which is consistent and slightly extends context, but no extra behavioral traits beyond annotations. Baseline 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?

Single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent), and clear purpose, the description is complete for this trivial tool. Nothing more is needed.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4 as per instructions. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none.

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?

Specific verb 'Show' and specific resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like connect, authenticate, or report_bug.

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 tool is self-explanatory for a zero-parameter info action. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the context implies it's for version diagnostics. No exclusions stated, but not needed for such a simple tool.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not repeat that. It adds value by specifying what the state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action (returns) and immediately lists the content. No wasted words, efficient and clear.

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 with no parameters and a clear output description. It covers what it returns, and annotations cover the safety profile. No output schema, but description enumerates the output contents. It's complete enough for a state-check 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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no param details because there are none. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is nothing to compensate for.

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 the current toolkit state, listing specific items (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a precise verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like connect or show_version.

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 for inspecting toolkit state, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. However, the context is clear enough for a read-only info tool, so it lacks exclusions but provides sufficient context.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable operational context: no platform credentials required, prepaid payment per consultation, data is not confidential, and the client is responsible for LGPD compliance. This 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 three sentences long and front-loads the core purpose. It adds operational and legal details without excessive verbosity, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 6 parameters with zero schema description and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the purpose and some operational aspects but omits critical parameter semantics and return-value expectations, making it insufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters at all. It fails to explain the required 'tipo_certidao' or optional fields like CPF, CNPJ, or parent names, leaving the agent with no guidance on how to fill the parameters correctly.

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 performs a 'Nada Consta' consultation from the TJDF court in an official source ('consulta em fonte oficial'). The specific verb 'consultar' and resource 'Nada Consta' distinguish it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which are platform-level operations.

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 context: it is for consulting official Brazilian court data, available to citizens, and paid via prepaid credit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the context is sufficiently clear for when to use this tool, especially given the unrelated sibling tools.

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