Tribunal TRT15: Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas (CEAT)

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

Annotations already include idempotentHint=true, and the description adds that it can be called with no args to retrieve a link or with a token for session authentication. It also mentions the permanent config approach, providing behavior beyond what annotations imply.

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 dense sentences cover purpose, usage modes, and parameter handling. No fluff; every sentence carries essential 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?

Given the simple single-parameter tool, the description fully covers usage, alternatives, and output (link or auth). No output schema is present, but the description implies behavior clearly enough.

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 one optional 'token' parameter with no description. The tool description explicitly explains when to pass it (session-only) and what it is (a JWT), fully compensating for the schema's lack of detail, though it could be slightly more formal.

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: authentication for MCP.AI IDE agents, with explicit instructions to log in and obtain a token. It distinguishes between two modes (permanent via config, session via token), making it distinct from siblings like '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?

Explicitly explains when to use config vs. pasting token, and the no-args case to get a link. It provides clear directives for both invocation patterns and alternatives, making it obvious when and how to use this tool versus other configuration approaches.

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, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds valuable context about the return format (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs) and how states affect output. 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 two concise sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then detailing edge cases. Every phrase adds necessary information without fluff.

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?

This is a simple read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description fully explains the two possible return scenarios and the URLs included. With annotations covering safety, this is complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information (since none exist) but does clarify the output semantics, which is appropriate. No gap 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 states the tool returns connection status and URLs, using a specific verb ('Returns') and defining the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate and marketplace by focusing on the connection state rather than 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?

The description outlines the tool's behavior for different connection states (all connected vs missing credentials) but does not explicitly state when to call it or mention alternatives. Usage context is implied rather than prescribed.

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 goes well beyond annotations by revealing key behaviors: invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, does not bloat the tool list, returns connect/checkout links with a retry pattern, and flags installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. It also discloses permission requirements for write actions. Annotations said readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial context without contradiction.

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 wall of text (~450 words) without bullet points or section breaks. While every sentence adds valuable information, the lack of visual structure makes it harder to parse. It is comprehensive but not concise in format.

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 14 actions, 23 parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the main flows end-to-end: search/describe/invoke, auth/billing edge cases, permissions, and the prompt library. It does not detail exact return formats for every action, but it is remarkably complete for the 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?

With 23 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameter behavior. It explains the meaning of action values (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.), tool_id selection, arguments, prompt variables, and request_mcp. However, not all parameters are covered (e.g., limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason), so it's not a full compensation for the schema 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 opens with 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them,' which clearly states what the tool is and does. It enumerates the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and distinguishes the marketplace's role from sibling tools by covering report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt library.

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' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit.' It also explains when to use list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, and request_mcp, and notes that writes require workspace owner/admin. This gives clear decision criteria.

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 (idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false) already indicate the tool is non-destructive and idempotent. The description adds the conversation array requirement but does not disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., network effect, confirmation steps). Given annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides marginal extra value, warranting a neutral score.

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, each purposeful. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second adds a critical usage instruction. No filler or redundancy, making it an example of efficient, front-loaded writing.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and one usage detail but fails to describe the 'message' and 'context' parameters, which are essential for proper invocation. It is adequate but incomplete, missing parameter clarifications and post-action behavior.

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 explain all parameters. It only explains 'conversation' ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'), but does not clarify 'message' or 'context'. The description partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation but omits two of three parameters, leaving significant ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses a specific verb ('report') and identifies the resource (bugs/feedback), and none of the sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) overlap with this functionality, making it fully distinguishable.

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 for when to use the tool ('Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback') and gives explicit guidance on including the conversation array for reproduction. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but sibling tools are unrelated, so no exclusions are necessary.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying what information is returned (platform and adapter versions), 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler. Every word contributes to clarity. Perfectly 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?

For a simple version-information tool with no parameters, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. No additional context 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description needs to add no parameter information, and it correctly doesn't.

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 specific action ('Show') and the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It directly conveys the tool's purpose and is distinct from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'authenticate'.

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 for checking version information, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or any exclusions. However, the tool's purpose is self-evident and unambiguous given its name and 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds specific details about what state is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is useful behavioral context 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, action verb front-loaded, enumerates all key output elements. 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only state tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies what will be returned: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. That's sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 to describe. Schema coverage is vacuously 100%. Baseline 4 applies because the description doesn't need to explain 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 specifies the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'current toolkit state', and enumerates the specific elements: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or authenticate which are actions, making it 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 usage context: it's for inspecting toolkit state. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but given the sibling tools (connect, authenticate, marketplace, etc.) are actions, the read-only nature is clear. Lacks explicit exclusions, but context is sufficient.

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 that credentials are not needed and payment is required per query, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like response time, potential failure modes, or rate limits, and it repeats the fact that data is not confidential, which is partially implied by openWorldHint=false? Actually, openWorldHint=false means the world is closed, but the description says the info is not confidential, which might be a slight contradiction? No, it's not a contradiction, but the description adds legal context about LGPD, which is extra. Overall, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond 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 sentences, reasonably concise. However, the third sentence about the client being the data controller and LGPD responsibility is important but could be seen as verbose. The structure is adequate but not optimally front-loaded; the core purpose is in the first sentence. It earns its place but could be trimmed.

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 moderate complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the operational context (payment, credentials, data source) but misses parameter semantics and return details. Since no output schema exists, the description should explain what the query returns, but it does not. This is a significant gap for completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description provides no parameter documentation. The parameters (cpf, cnpj, nome) are listed without any explanation of formats, constraints, or relationships (e.g., whether at least one is required, if they are mutually exclusive, or if combination is allowed). The description gives no guidance on how to fill them. With zero coverage, the description 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 states the tool queries the official CEAT labor lawsuit certificate from TRT15. It specifies the resource (Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas) and the action (consulta). However, it lacks explicit differentiation from possible sibling tools that might query other tribunals or similar certificates, though the tribunal name is in the tool name.

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 a paid query with prepaid credits, hosted by the platform, and requires no platform credentials. It implies usage when needing official Brazilian labor court certificate data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the sibling set is unrelated, so differentiation is less critical.

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