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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the schema without describing side effects, return values, error conditions, or the fact that calling arbitrary tools may have destructive consequences. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a usage hint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description could have mentioned that the tool returns the called tool's output or that invalid names will error. The core functionality is clear, but some behavioral expectations are missing, so it is minimally viable rather than 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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters described. The description adds little beyond the schema, repeating 'by name with the given arguments' without explaining how arguments map to the called tool's parameters. Baseline 3 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 the action: 'Call a tool by name with the given arguments,' which specifies the verb and resource. It also differentiates from search_tools by noting the tool is for executing discovered tools, but it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling executar_lote, so it falls short of a 5.

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 usage context: 'Use this to execute tools discovered via search_tools.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, but it does not mention exclusions or alternatives, so it is not 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions parallel execution and the need for full tool names, but does not disclose failure semantics, partial failure behavior, side effects of executing multiple tools, permissions, or result format. This is a significant gap for a batch execution tool that may invoke arbitrary tools with potential side effects.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core verb and purpose. Each section (when to use, required format, example) earns its place, and the example improves clarity without excessive verbosity.

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 covers the essential invocation details and example, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, it omits constraints like maximum batch size or behavior on individual tool failures, which are relevant for safe and effective use of a batch execution tool. Overall it is quite complete for typical use.

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 for 'consultas' is essentially opaque (no property descriptions), so the description fully compensates by defining the exact structure of each item (required 'tool' and 'args' keys) and providing a clear example. This adds substantial meaning beyond the 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 states 'Executa múltiplas tools em uma única chamada, em paralelo', clearly identifying the verb, resource, and parallel execution mode. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'call_tool' by emphasizing batch execution of multiple tools in one call.

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 explicitly says when to use: 'para evitar chamadas sequenciais quando precisar de dados de várias fontes ou de vários anos/parâmetros ao mesmo tempo'. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'call_tool') for single calls, but the usage context 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the tool's scope (all registered, including inactive datasets), that sizes are approximate, and that it reports cache download status. The dependency on MCP_BRASIL_DATASETS is explained. It implicitly indicates a read-only operation via 'lista', though it does not explicitly state this.

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 a clear purpose statement, followed by relevant context about the cache dependency, and ends with a structured return specification. Each sentence adds necessary information without fluff, making it 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, scope, behavior (active/inactive, approximate size, cache state), and the environment variable dependency. It also specifies the return format in plain text, even though an output schema exists. Slightly more detail on prerequisites or explicit read-only nature would improve completeness, but it is adequate for a no-parameter listing 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The description adds meaning by explaining that no input is needed and that the tool simply lists datasets and their cache state. Since there are no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies and the description adequately communicates the lack of inputs.

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 first sentence clearly states the verb and resource: 'Lista os datasets locais (ADR-004) disponíveis e seu estado de cache.' It further distinguishes itself from siblings like 'listar_features' by focusing on datasets and explicitly reporting all registered datasets (active and inactive).

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 dataset availability and cache status, noting that features depend on local cache. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as 'listar_features', nor does it mention when not to use it.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only listing action and describes the returned content ('Resumo das features ativas com descrição e status de autenticação'), which is sufficient for a simple, non-mutating tool. It does not mention side effects because there are none.

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 well-structured, with a clear opening statement, an explicit usage sentence, and a separate 'Returns:' section. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no waste.

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 no parameters and a simple listing function, the description is complete. It explains what is listed, why to use it, and what is returned. The presence of an output schema means the description does not need to detail return values further.

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 does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and no further information is required.

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 function: 'Lista todas as features (APIs) disponíveis no mcp-brasil' using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that it reveals which government APIs are connected and which tools each offers, setting it apart from 'listar_datasets_disponiveis' and 'search_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?

Explicit context is provided in 'Use esta tool para saber quais APIs governamentais estão conectadas e quais tools cada uma oferece.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations to avoid, preventing a score of 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool's behavior in detail: it analyzes the question, identifies tools, order, and dependencies, which implies it only creates a plan and does not execute it. This is transparent and non-misleading.

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, with a one-sentence purpose, a brief but informative explanation, and an Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the example is helpful without verbosity.

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 single parameter, presence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, usage context, parameter meaning, and provides an example. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this 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 input schema only declares 'query' as a string with no description. The description compensates by explaining it as a natural language question and providing a concrete example, which fully disambiguates the 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 states a specific action ('cria um plano de execução') for complex queries, and, further details explain it analyzes the question and determines tool order and dependencies. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing ordering and dependency analysis beyond mere tool recommendation.

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 explicitly states it is useful for queries that need multiple combined calls, which tells an agent when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare it to alternatives like recomendar_tools, so it lacks 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses AI to understand intent and suggests the most adequate tools from mcp-brasil, which implies a non-destructive read-only operation. However, it does not describe the output structure (though an output schema exists) or any limitations of the AI-based recommendation process.

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 well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, adds a brief clarifying sentence about the AI mechanism, and then presents the argument documentation in a clean, scannable format. No word is wasted.

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 one-parameter recommender, the description adequately covers the main functionality, the input format, and the source of recommendations (mcp-brasil). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values. It could explicitly differentiate from 'search_tools', but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 provides zero description for the single 'query' parameter, but the description compensates with an 'Args' section that explains the parameter meaning and gives a concrete example: 'quero dados sobre gastos do governo federal'. This fully covers the parameter's 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: 'Recomenda tools relevantes a partir de uma pergunta em linguagem natural' (Recommends relevant tools from a natural language question). It uses a specific verb ('recomenda') and resource ('tools'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_tools' by emphasizing AI-based intent comprehension and providing explanations for each recommendation.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_tools' or 'listar_features'. It mentions that the tool will explain 'quando e como usar cada uma' (when and how to use each recommended tool), but this refers to the output content, not to the circumstances under which an agent should invoke this tool itself.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states that it returns matching tool definitions ranked by relevance, which is a behavioral trait. It also mentions the format is same as list_tools, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose any side effects, rate limits, or other behavioral details. Given the tool is a search operation, 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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second clarifies the return format. No waste.

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 with one parameter and an output schema. The description explains the return format (same as list_tools) and ranking by relevance. Given the simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It could mention that it's a read-only operation, but that's not critical.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'query' as a natural language query. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: searching for tools using natural language. It specifies the action (search) and the resource (tools), and distinguishes it from siblings like list_tools by mentioning the return format. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other sibling tools like call_tool, but the purpose is clear.

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 you need to find tools by natural language query. It mentions the return format is same as list_tools, which gives some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool references. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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