Tribunal TRT3: Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas (CEAT)

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint and non-read-only, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It adds value by revealing that the config approach yields a 'permanent, non-expiring connection' while the token path is 'session-only', and by describing the agent's expected orchestration steps (call with no args → give user link → await token). It does not conflict with the annotations; in fact, it's consistent with idempotent behavior when called with no args.

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?

Three dense sentences walk through purpose, recommended config approach, and session fallback in a logical order, with every clause earning its place. The structure is slightly run-on — the third sentence crams two call patterns behind a colon — but the 'Best:' and 'Or' signposts keep the flow readable.

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 output schema, one optional string param, and moderate workflow complexity (browser round-trip), the description covers all key call patterns: no-args, token-pasted, and config-based. It would be more complete with explicit return-value or error examples (e.g., expired/invalid token), but for an auth handshake tool the critical behaviors are all disclosed.

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 — and it does. It explains that 'token' is a JWT the user pastes after browser login, and clarifies the optionality ('call with { token: "<jwt>" }' versus 'no args to get the link'). It could add token format/expiry details, but it conveys the key semantic: token is omitted to retrieve the link, then passed to complete login.

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 specific verb+resource pair ('log in in the browser') scoped to 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly explains the authentication flow (browser login → copy token → pass or configure), distinguishing it from siblings like 'connect' by centering on the token/cookie handoff. The two call patterns (config vs. session) further clarify what this specific tool does.

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 by contrasting the 'Best' permanent config approach with the session-only paste fallback, and tells the agent exactly when to pass the token vs. call with no args. It could be stronger by explicitly naming the 'connect' sibling as an alternative, but the context for when to use this flow is clear.

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, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context by detailing the output structure (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url) and the two states, going 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?

Two sentences front-load the main function and then elaborate on the two scenarios. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition of schema or annotations.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description fully covers the return behavior in both states, including the key fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url). It is self-sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on response behavior rather than parameter details, which is appropriate.

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 'Returns connection status and URLs' and specifies two distinct response scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials), making the purpose unambiguous. It differentiates from siblings like 'authenticate' by explicitly being a status check, not an authentication action.

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 (check connection status) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, such as using 'authenticate' for credential setup. It lacks exclusions or recommended sequencing, so the agent must infer the appropriate 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 provide readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, but the description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: it reveals that invoke works even for uninstalled MCPs, runs one-off without bloating the toolkit, returns connect/checkout links when credentials or payment are needed, and that writes require owner/admin. It also explains the prompt library behavior. No contradiction 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 lengthy (over 200 words) but justified given the tool's complexity (14 actions, prompt library, flow explanations). It is front-loaded with the purpose and core flow, then layers details. There is minimal repetition or fluff; each sentence adds value. While it could be broken into more digestible sections, it is well-structured for a multi-action 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 complexity (23 params, no required params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all major action categories, the one-off vs permanent install distinction, auth requirements, payment/connect flows, and the prompt library. It explains return values implicitly (e.g., connect/checkout links, profiles) and sets expectations for usage. There are few 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the action enum and key parameters (mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, message, etc.) within the context of the core flow. It does not systematically describe all 23 parameters, but it covers the most important ones and provides enough context for the agent to infer usage. Some parameters like conversation, prompt_targets, etc. are not individually explained, but the description gives a solid foundation.

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 the official mcp.ai marketplace and enumerates its capabilities (search, describe, invoke, install, prompt library, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by defining its role as the in-platform catalog and execution engine, with a specific core flow (search → describe → invoke). This is a specific verb+resource with differentiation.

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: it details the core flow (action=search → describe → invoke), clarifies when to use invoke vs install (prefer invoke for one-off, install for permanent), and explains when to use subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and prompt library actions. It also states auth requirements (writes require workspace owner/admin). This is comprehensive when/when-not guidance with alternatives.

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 idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool sends feedback and that conversation data is needed for reproduction, which provides some context beyond annotations but does not detail side effects, success/failure responses, or any rate limits. With annotations covering the core behavioral traits, a score of 3 is fair.

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 the main action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second provides a key usage hint regarding the conversation parameter.

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 (3 params, 1 required, no output schema, no nested objects) and annotations cover safety. The description provides the essential purpose and the key reproduction hint. It could mention that 'message' is required or describe the expected format, but for this simplicity level, the description is nearly complete. A score of 4 reflects that slight gap without undermining adequacy.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array'), but does not explain the 'message' (the required one) or 'context' parameters. The meaning of 'message' is inferable from the tool's purpose, and 'context' is left unexplained. This partial compensation yields a score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback' – a specific verb (report/send) with a clear resource (bug/feature/feedback). It also includes an actionable instruction about including the conversation array, which adds specificity and distinguishes it from sibling 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 tells when to use the tool (report a bug, missing feature, or feedback) and provides contextual guidance on what to include (conversation array for reproduction). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly unrelated, so no confusion arises. A score of 4 is appropriate for clear use-case context without explicit exclusions.

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 'current' which implies a snapshot at call time, but does not disclose return format or any other behavioral nuances. Given the annotations, this minimal addition is acceptable but not rich, so a score of 3.

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, concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, and no further information is needed for proper 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, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is nothing to describe beyond what the schema already shows (empty properties). The description does not need to add parameter info 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?

The description clearly states the tool shows current MCP platform and adapter versions. The verb 'show' and specific resource 'MCP platform and adapter versions' make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from siblings which handle authentication, connections, marketplaces, bug reporting, etc.

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 does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but it is a simple, standalone version-info tool with no overlapping siblings. The use case is self-evident: when the agent needs version information. Since no exclusion or alternative is needed, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying exactly what state the tool returns—installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, and catalog tool counts. No additional mutation risks or side effects are implied or hidden.

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 enumerates all provided information without any filler or repetition. Each clause adds meaningful detail about the tool's output scope.

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, parameterless status tool, the description is complete. It explicitly lists the four categories of returned information, and with strong annotations and no required inputs, no further behavioral caveats are necessary.

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 need not explain parameter meanings. The schema is empty and fully covered. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies.

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 ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource (current toolkit state) with detailed scope: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool count. This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, connect, and 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 provides clear context: use this to inspect the current state of the toolkit. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intent is unambiguous and no competing sibling performs the same function.

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 signal readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful transparency beyond them: no credentials needed, per-query prepaid cost, data is publicly available, not confidential, and customers are LGPD controllers. This gives an agent a strong risk and compliance picture without contradicting 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps the additional credential, payment, and legal context compact. There is minor repetition between 'fonte oficial' and 'fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros', but overall every sentence carries useful 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?

The description is strong for legal and payment context, but it does not define input requirements or expected output, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. For a simple consultation tool it is minimally viable, but adding the CPF/CNPJ rule and what the CEAT response contains would make it 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% and the description never mentions the CPF/CNPJ parameters, whether either is required, how they should be formatted, or if both can be used. The schema only provides property names and string types, leaving the agent to guess invocation requirements.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Tribunal TRT3: Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas (CEAT), consulta em fonte oficial.' It uses a concrete verb (consulta) and explicitly names the official source and document type, which also distinguishes it from the generic 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?

The description provides useful operational context—no platform credentials, prepaid credits, official source, LGPD responsibility—but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over any alternative or when not to use it. Usage is reasonably implied but not clearly framed as decision guidance.

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