DETRAN PR: Veículo (Extrato)

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals that calling without arguments returns a login link, and providing a token enables a session-only login. It discloses the persistence difference between config-based and session-based approaches, covering behavioral nuances.

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 informative but somewhat long, mixing context and instructions. However, every sentence adds value, and it's well-organized (context, best practice, then two call patterns). It could be tightened but is not wordy.

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 lack of an output schema, the description explains what happens in each invocation (returns a link or accepts a token). It also covers setup guidance, making it complete for an agent to know when and how to call 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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the single `token` parameter: it's an optional JWT, and its presence switches between getting a link and authenticating. This adds meaning absent from 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to authenticate IDE agents via a browser login and token retrieval. It distinguishes two distinct modes (permanent config vs session-only) and references the target context (Cursor, etc.), making it unmistakable 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 explicit usage scenarios: call with no args to generate a login link, or call with a token for session-based authentication. It also recommends the best practice (adding the token to server config for a permanent connection) and explains the two options clearly.

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 meaningful context about the return states (authenticated:true vs. connect_url), but it doesn't disclose details like whether this incurs network calls or rate limits. Given annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'). The second sentence adds needed detail about the two states, making it concise and well-structured, with no redundant 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with clear annotationso, the description covers the key behaviors (authenticated when all providers connected, or URLs when missing). It doesn't explain the format of the return, but without a detailed output schema, the description is sufficient for a simple status check.

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 provides no property definitions. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (status and URLs), compensating for the lack of parameters. With no params, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics further.

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 it returns connection status and URLs, and explains the difference between connected and missing-credential states. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the description's specific behavior (returning status and URLs) is distinct from actions like 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 this tool is for checking connection status, and hints at a scenario (when credentials are missing) where it returns URLs. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context signals are clear given the sibling names and the tool's read-only nature.

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 annotations, it adds meaningful operational context: platform-hosted, no platform credentials, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, data available to citizens, and client data-controller responsibilities under LGPD. It does not describe the return payload, but the read-only annotation already signals safety.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences add useful operational and legal context. It is compact and readable, though some legal/boilerplate phrasing could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns, likely error conditions, or rate/usage limits. While the high-level purpose and context are present, parameter semantics and response expectations are missing, leaving the agent under-informed for 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 schema has three required parameters with zero description coverage, and the description does not explain renavam, pkcs12_cert, or pkcs12_pass. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 DETRAN PR vehicle extract query against an official source. It is specific about the resource (Veículo/Extrato) and action (consulta), and it distinguishes itself from the unrelated 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 context: official Brazilian source, non-confidential data, prepaid per-query model, and LGPD compliance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or 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?

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing side effects: invoke runs tools even when not installed, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment issues, and writes require workspace owner/admin. It also notes the one-off install behind invoke and the prompt library behavior. This is highly transparent and does not contradict the readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false 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 dense paragraph but every sentence adds value, covering the core flow, exceptions, and prompt library. It is well-organized in a logical progression, though it could benefit from bullet points or subheadings to improve scannability. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 extensive coverage of the main workflow and edge cases (auth, payment, permissions), the description omits details for some actions like 'resume' and 'get_prompt' specifics, and does not describe return values for actions. Since there is no output schema, the lack of output descriptions leaves agents guessing about responses. Overall, it is fairly complete but has notable 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 23 parameters, the description must compensate. It explains key parameters like action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and several prompt-related fields contextually, but leaves many parameters unexplained (e.g., limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, conversation). The description provides enough for the main flow but not full parameter-level clarity.

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 it is the official mcp.ai marketplace, a catalog of MCPs/tools with the ability to run them. It outlines specific actions (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and the core flow, distinguishing itself from sibling tools like detran_pr_veiculo_consultar by being a general-purpose platform rather than a specific tool.

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 guidance on when to use each action: prefer invoke for one-off use, use install for permanent toolkit additions, and use list_tools to see what is callable now. It also explains the search→describe→invoke flow and mentions capability requests, giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus 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?

The description discloses that the tool sends/report an action and explains its reproduction context, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not describe a response/outcome or idempotent behavior, though the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations provide partial safety 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?

Two purposeful sentences: the first defines the tool's scope, the second gives the most important invocation detail. No filler or redundant restatement of schema fields.

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 conceptually simple and the description covers its basic purpose, but it's not fully invocation-ready because the conversation parameter format is ambiguous and the context parameter is left undocumented. An extra sentence about serializing conversation or what context means would close the gap.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It clarifies the conversation/reproduction data intent, but 'context' is never explained, and calling the conversation parameter a string 'conversation array' creates ambiguity about whether it should be a JSON array or a JSON-encoded string.

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?

Uses a specific verb-plus-resource combination: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It clearly frames the tool as a user feedback channel and distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which compete for feedback submission.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance and adds an explicit instruction to include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool is a plausible substitute.

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 agent knows this is a safe inspection. The description adds the 'current' qualifier, indicating it reflects live versions, but does not elaborate on output format or any potential failure modes. This is sufficient 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 a single, concise sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 extremely low complexity (no parameters, no output schema) and the strong annotation coverage, the description provides enough context. It does not describe return values, but for a version-check utility this is a minor omission rather than a critical gap.

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. According to the rubric, a no-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4, and the description adds nothing that contradicts or needs clarification.

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 ('Show') and the specific resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like authenticate or report_bug, which serve entirely 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 use when version information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. For a simple read-only utility, the implied usage is acceptable but not fully explicit.

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 safe-read nature is covered. The description adds what the tool returns (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects (none expected), delays due to network checks, or the exact structure of the returned state. With strong annotations, the description adds acceptable but not extensive value beyond them.

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 sentence that conveys all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Returns') and precisely lists the content. No filler, no excess.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient detail about the return contents. One could argue for a perfect 5, but mentioning the exact format or whether the info is real-time vs cached could be slightly more complete. Still, for a simple info tool, it is highly 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 description's only job is to explain what the tool does, which it does robustly. Since there are no parameters, the schema provides no ambiguity, and the description fully compensates. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets that bar.

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 what the tool returns: current toolkit state including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It uses specific verbs ('returns') and defines the resource ('current toolkit state') with concrete detail, distinguishing it from siblings 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 implies when to use this tool (when you need an overview of toolkit configuration) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Given that sibling names like authenticate and connect exist, more explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool would be helpful, but the description's context is clear enough for a read-only info tool.

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