Tribunal TRT19: Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas (CEAT)

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the session vs. permanent distinction, mentions the Authorization header format, and states that no-args returns a login link. It adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the idempotent hint.

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 and front-loaded, providing the essential workflow in a few sentences. It is somewhat dense with nested instructions, but every sentence adds value.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the key usage scenarios, persistent vs. session-based auth, and how to trigger the browser login. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and call the 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 schema only describes `token` as a string with no explanation, while the description clarifies it is an optional JWT used for session-only login and that omitting it retrieves the login link. This compensates well for the 0% schema description 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: authenticating to MCP.AI for IDE agents by logging in, copying an access token, and using it for either persistent or session-only access. It uses a specific verb and resource and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining the exact 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use each invocation mode: adding the token to server config for a permanent connection, passing the token for a session-only login, or calling with no args to receive the login link. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but it gives strong practical guidance on how to authenticate.

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, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the two possible output states (authenticated:true with empty pending, or connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs), which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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, directly front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes necessary details about output states. No extraneous 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 simple status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials) and explains the returned URLs. It is complete for the tool's scope.

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 there is no parameter semantics to add. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than 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 distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status reporting rather than establishing connections.

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?

Usage is implied through the description of output states (connected vs. missing credentials), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus 'authenticate' or other siblings. The agent must infer that this is for checking status rather than initiating authentication.

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?

Goes well beyond the minimal annotations by disclosing that invoke runs uninstalled MCPs one-off without bloating the tool list, that writes require workspace owner/admin, that missing credentials produce connect links, and that empty wallets produce checkout/top-up links. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and authorization context an agent needs.

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 but densely organized: core flow, KEY one-off behavior, install vs invoke, permissions, then prompt library. Every sentence carries operational value, and the length is justified by the tool's breadth of 14 actions and no schema descriptions to lean on.

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 such a complex dispatcher, the description covers most critical context: the search/describe/invoke flow, one-off vs permanent installation, auth/payment handling, write permissions, installed flags, and the prompt library. Gaps remain for the 'resume' action and several parameters, and there is no output schema or return-shape guidance, so it is 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?

The description adds rich meaning for the central action parameter and core concepts like tool_id and prompt slug, but with 0% schema coverage and 23 parameters, many parameters (immediate, tier_slug, conversation, report_context, request_details, etc.) receive no explanation. It compensates at the workflow level but not at the parameter level.

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 every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them,' with a concrete search→describe→invoke core flow. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by covering the full catalog/run lifecycle plus the prompt library, and even gives example capability requests that make match-to-intent obvious.

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' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit.' It also explains the retry flow for missing credentials or empty wallet, says list_tools shows what is callable right now, and points to request_mcp when nothing fits.

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 are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds value by explaining the expectation to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is a behavioral guidance. It doesn't contradict annotations. The idempotentHint true is fine since reporting a bug multiple times is idempotent. It clearly discloses the need for conversation context, which helps set 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, concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place; no fluff. It states the purpose and the key 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?

The tool is simple (one required param, no output schema, likely a fire-and-forget feedback tool). The description is complete enough for its simplicity: it tells the user what to do and what to include. It doesn't explain return values, but that's not necessary given the lack of an output schema. Overall adequate.

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 does mention 'conversation array' and 'message' (inferred), but not 'context'. However, the default values and types are somewhat clear from schema. Since it explicitly explains the purpose of 'conversation' ('for reproduction'), it adds meaning beyond the schema, which justifies a score above baseline 3.

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 the tool's purpose clearly: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('bug, missing feature, or feedback'), distinguishing it from sibling tools by its 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 implies usage by saying 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' which guides the user to provide relevant context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. It's adequate for a feedback tool, as it's likely the only one for this 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description adds 'platform and adapter versions' as the concrete return scoping, which is helpful but minimal. It does not specify output structure, potential network behavior, or error states, though these are less critical for a low-risk version tool.

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 scoped sentence with no filler or duplication of structured metadata. Every word adds semantic value.

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 informational tool with strong annotations, the description covers what versions are returned (platform + adapter), though it could mention whether this validates a server connection or just reads local metadata. Sibling tools like connect suggest a possible prerequisite, but this is a minor gap for a tool of this simplicity.

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 zero parameters, the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate since there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve.

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 ('Show') tied to a clear resource ('the current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like connect and toolkit_info by naming the exact output 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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not clarify when an agent should use this instead of sibling tools like toolkit_info, nor does it mention preconditions (e.g., requires active connection).

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 useful context about exactly what information is returned, which helps set expectations. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns') and lists concrete return items without any fluff. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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 read-only, parameterless info tool with annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently enumerates the return payload and distinguishes it from siblings. No output schema exists, but the description adequately fills that gap for this simple case.

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 carries no parameter burden. Per the rubric, 0 params receives a baseline of 4; there is nothing more to add.

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 'Returns' and identifies the exact resource ('current toolkit state') while enumerating concrete contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate and 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 provides clear context that this is a state-inspection tool, so an agent can infer when to use it for checking toolkit status. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses important behavioral and operational traits: payment per query with prepaid credit, no platform credentials required, data source is official and not confidential, and LGPD compliance responsibility. This goes well beyond what annotations already state.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The legal and payment details are relevant but slightly lengthen the text; still, each sentence carries essential information and adds value.

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 good purpose and transparency, the description omits critical invocation details: no parameter guidance, no clarification of return values or certificate format, and no indication which identifiers are expected. With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool reliably.

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 the cpf, cnpj, or nome parameters. It fails to communicate whether any of these are required, how they should be formatted, or how they are used in the query. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 the CEAT certificate from TRT19 official source, distinguishing it from generic sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace. The verb and resource are specific and immediately understandable.

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 queries official Brazilian sources, is hosted on the platform, requires prepaid credits, and does not need platform credentials. It does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, but there are no close sibling query tools, and the context strongly implies its intended use.

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