Tribunal TRF5: Certidão Negativa Cível e Criminal

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by mentioning permanent non-expiring vs session-only login, giving insight into persistence and side effects, though it doesn't explicitly describe all mutation details.

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 yet dense, organized with clear steps and options, and every sentence adds value without 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 a simple authentication tool, it covers the essentials: how to obtain the token, two ways to use it, and the outcome of calling with no arguments, making it sufficiently 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?

The token parameter is fully explained: it is the JWT from the browser, used for session-only login, and the behavior with no args (get link) is also described, covering the only parameter.

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 authentication purpose with specific actions (log in, copy token) and distinguishes from sibling tools 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?

It provides explicit instructions on how to use (browser login, token handling) and describes two usage scenarios (permanent config vs session-only), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use.

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful conditional context: returns authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. 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?

Two sentences, fully front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by conditional detail. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains both possible return states and the URLs involved. It is complete for a simple status tool, though it could mention how this relates to 'authenticate' for fuller contextual guidance.

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 description coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter semantics because none are 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 states a specific action ('Returns connection status and URLs') tied to a clear resource (connection status), and distinguishes itself from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on read-only status 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 implies when to use the tool (to check connection status and retrieve URLs) and describes conditional behavior, but it does not explicitly contrast with 'authenticate' or state when not to use it. Usage guidance is 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 only state readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, returns connect/checkout links conditionally, and writes require workspace owner/admin. It also explains the one-off vs permanent installation behavior and the semantics of the prompt library. This goes far beyond the annotations by describing side effects, permissions, and edge cases.

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 and unstructured (multiple run-on paragraphs), but it is densely packed with useful information and avoids fluff. Every sentence adds value. Given the tool's complexity (14 actions, two domains), the length is justified, though better organization (e.g., bullet points or sections) would improve scannability.

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?

Despite 23 parameters, 14 actions, and no output schema, the description covers the full workflow, permissions, billing, edge cases (connect link, checkout link), and the prompt library. It explains what each action returns (e.g., 'invoke returns a connect link', 'get_prompt returns its full text'), so the agent has enough context to operate correctly. The description is remarkably complete for such a multifaceted 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 23 parameters. It explains the concept of 'action' by listing all possible actions and their purposes, but it does not directly map parameter names to usage (e.g., not saying 'query' is the search term or 'limit' caps results). Some parameters like 'tool_id' and 'arguments' are implicitly covered through the invoke flow, but many (e.g., 'conversation', 'prompt_vars') are left undocumented. The description provides partial meaning but not complete parameter semantics.

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: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by covering both MCP discovery/execution and a prompt library, and further clarifies sub-actions like search, describe, invoke, and install. This is a specific verb+resource with clear 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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Core flow: action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile... invoke RUNS that tool.' It also gives when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It further distinguishes each action (list_tools, subscribe, report_bug, request_mcp, etc.) and explains the prompt library sub-actions, so the agent knows exactly when to use each mode.

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 convey this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context about including a conversation for reproduction, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no fluff. Every word adds value, providing the core purpose and a specific usage instruction.

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 low-complexity tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It states the purpose and hints at the conversation parameter, but omits explanations for the other parameters. While not lacking major context, it could be more complete by clarifying all fields.

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 mentions the 'conversation array' and its purpose ('recent messages for reproduction'), which partially clarifies the 'conversation' parameter. However, it does not explain the required 'message' field or the optional 'context' field, leaving them unexplained. This is insufficient given zero schema coverage.

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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses specific verbs and a distinct resource (bug/feature/feedback), which is unambiguous and differentiates it from unrelated sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace.

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 a direct usage hint: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' This implies when to use the tool (to report issues) but does not provide exclusions, alternatives, or when not to use it. Given there are no closely related siblings, this is adequate but not 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the specific output content (platform and adapter versions) but doesn't go beyond that. It doesn't disclose return format or any potential side effects, but annotations already cover the safety profile. The description adds a bit of context about what versions are shown, so 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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no fluff. It is concise and clear. Perfectly appropriate for this simple 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, basic read-only operation), the description is complete. It states what the tool does. Annotations cover safety traits. Siblings are unrelated, so no additional disambiguation needed. The description could be considered slightly sparse for transparency, but for a version check, 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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously, since there are no properties). The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description is clear about what it returns. No additional param information 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: it shows current MCP platform and adapter versions. The verb 'show' is specific and the resource (platform and adapter versions) is named. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the sibling tools have unrelated purposes (auth, connection, marketplace, bug reporting, etc.), so no real confusion arises.

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 implicitly conveys usage: call this when you need to know version information. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the sibling tools have distinct functions, context implies the tool is for version queries. No explicit exclusion is provided, but the simplicity makes it adequate.

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, which are consistent with this read-only operation. The description adds value by detailing exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is useful 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?

Single sentence, clearly enumerates the returned data. No fluff, perfectly front-loaded.

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 state-query tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully captures what the caller can expect. It mentions all key return elements and is self-contained.

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?

No parameters exist, so the schema provides full coverage. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameter semantics; a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 returns toolkit state, listing specific elements (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools 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?

The description implies when to use (to check toolkit state) but doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use. No exclusions or comparison to sibling tools, so guidance is adequate but not 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description is consistent with them. It adds meaningful context: no credentials required, prepaid usage, official public-sourced data, and the client's LGPD data-controller responsibility. It does not disclose rate limits or failure modes, but the core behavioral profile is transparent.

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, using a few sentences without rambling. It front-loads the purpose and then adds relevant payment, credential, and LGPD context. It is efficient given the amount of background information it conveys.

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 has five parameters, no output schema, and no parameter-level documentation, yet the description does not explain how to build a valid request or what the returned certidão would look like. It is richly contextual about pricing and legal posture but insufficient, for independently invoking the call, especially because required tipo_certidao is never documented.

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 explain any of the five parameters. It never clarifies what 'cpf', 'cnpj', 'orgao', 'birthdate' or 'tipo_certificacao' should contain, nor what values the required tipo_certificao should take. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of parameter 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 resource ('Tribunal TRF5', 'Certidão Negativa Cível e Criminal') and the operation ('consulta em fonte oficial'), which is more specific than the bare tool name. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from potential alternative court/certidade lookup tools, but the scope is still unmistakable.

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 usage context: it is a paid, prepaid-credit consultation, requireslement no platform credentials, and returns data available to citizens. However, it does not say explicitly when to use this tool instead of another, nor does it mention disallowed or alternative usage cases.

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