Certidão de Crimes Eleitorais (TSE)

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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds critical behavioral context: it explains the two modes (permanent config vs session-only), how the token is used, and the 'non-expiring' vs 'session-only' distinction. This is useful beyond what annotations state, though it could mention what happens on invalid token or after successful login.

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 bit long and run-on, but every clause adds value. It is logically structured: audience → method → two options → invocation forms. It earns its length but could be split into shorter sentences for clarity, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: how to authenticate, the two connection strategies, and how to invoke the tool. It even mentions the security trade-off of permanent vs. session tokens. There is no missing critical information for an agent to use 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 has a single optional string 'token' with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining the token is a JWT from the browser and that the parameter is optional—including what happens when omitted (get link) versus when supplied (session login). This is far beyond what the schema provides.

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 MCP.AI for IDE agents. It specifies the action (log in, copy access token) and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on authentication workflow. It even contrasts with a config-based permanent login vs. session-only token paste, which sets it apart from generic '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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use each invocation style: no args to get the login link, or with a token for session-only login. It also recommends the 'best' approach (config header) for permanent connections, giving a clear decision framework. This goes beyond simple usage and offers 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 readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds conditional response details (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url when credentials are missing), which goes beyond annotation data and enhances understanding without any 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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and then provides specific conditional behavior. Every sentence is informative and there is no 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 parameterless, read-only tool, the description covers the main operational states and return values. It is slightly vague about partial connection states, but given the low complexity and existing annotations, the description is 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers everything. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The baseline score for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 that the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific details about the response in different states. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than the 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 gives behavioral context for two scenarios (all providers connected vs. missing credentials) but does not explicitly state when to use this instead of alternatives such as 'authenticate'. Usage is implied but not directly guided.

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?

Discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: invoke runs tools one-off even without installation, returns connect/checkout links based on auth/wallet state, and writes require owner/admin. Also explains installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags. Contradicts no 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 long but justified by the tool's 23 parameters and many actions. It is front-loaded with purpose and organized into the core flow, edge cases, and prompt library. No redundant sentences; each clause adds value, though a structured list could 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 no output schema, the description covers critical runtime behavior: invoke return links, permanent vs one-off installation, permission requirements, and the prompt library flow. It doesn't describe return formats for every action, but the explanation is sufficient for a complex dispatcher 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It maps actions to intent (search→query, describe→mcp_id, invoke→tool_id/arguments) and prompt operations to concept, but leaves some params (limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason) implicit. Significant compensation 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 clearly states the tool is 'the official mcp.ai marketplace' that catalogs and runs MCPs. It enumerates specific actions (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings by framing the core flow and roles (catalog, runner, 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 usage direction: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'. It also differentiates list_tools and explains when invoke returns connect/checkout links. States write actions require workspace owner/admin, giving clear access prerequisites.

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 (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It adds the practical detail about including the conversation array for reproduction, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether a ticket is created or data is sent). With annotations already covering safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second offers an essential usage detail. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 report tool, the description covers the main goal and the critical conversation parameter. However, the required 'message' parameter is not explicitly described, and 'context' is ignored. Given no output schema, some additional detail about return values or expected usage would improve 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?

The input schema has 3 parameters (context, message, conversation) with 0% schema description coverage. The description explicitly mentions only the 'conversation' array, leaving 'message' (the required parameter) and 'context' unexplained. While the purpose implies 'message' content, the description fails to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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.' This is a specific verb ('report') with a defined resource (bug/feature/feedback). It also differentiates from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which have unrelated 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback') and gives a specific usage instruction ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'). It does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a full 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?

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond stating what is shown, but it does not contradict the annotations. It thus provides some value by clarifying the resource, but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 extreme simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety), the description is fully complete. It clearly communicates the tool's purpose without needing further detail.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly makes no parameter claims, leaving no semantic 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 uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly stating what the tool does. It differentiates from sibling tools like toolkit_info by specifying the exact version information returned.

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 when version information is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions. Since it is a simple version tool, the usage is reasonably inferred.

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 is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and adds context about the returned content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as auth requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. With strong annotations, the bar is met but not exceeded.

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, well-structured sentence that lists the key return components in a logical order. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids any filler or redundant details.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the return value contains. It enumerates all major elements of the toolkit state, making it complete for an agent to understand the tool's output without additional documentation.

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 schema fully covers them (100% coverage). The description does not need to elaborate on parameter meanings; the baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no relevant parameter information.

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') with a clearly defined resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or connect, 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 usage: use this when needing the current toolkit state. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. Given the explicit 'current' and the nature of the info, an agent can infer it, but there is no direct guidance or mention of sibling 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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: hosting, no credentials needed, payment model, and the public/non-confidential nature of the data. 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?

Four sentences with purpose front-loaded. The legal/disclaimer sentence adds necessary context without excessive verbosity. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers purpose, auth, cost, and data sensitivity, but lacks parameter-level detail (especially required fields) and return format. Since there is no output schema, the description should explain the certificate more fully. Adequate but with clear 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions nome, CPF, título, and data de nascimento, but omits the required NomeMae and the optional 'completo' field. This is a significant gap that could cause an agent to miss required 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 a specific verb ('Emite a certidão') and resource ('crimes eleitorais de uma pessoa no TSE'), distinguishing it from the unrelated sibling tools. No ambiguity about what the 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?

Provides clear context: public access data, no credentials, pay-per-query, and LGPD responsibility. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, but siblings are platform utilities unrelated to data queries, so no exclusion is needed.

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