Search Japanese product / food recall notices (consumer-affairs-agency aggregator). Each hit includes firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | 商品名 / 事業者名・部分一致 | |
| since | No | ||
| agency | No | 所管 (消費者庁 等) | |
| status | No | ||
| recallClass | No | リコール区分 (返金／回収 / 回収命令 / 注意喚起 等) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that hits include firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified, but does not cover mutability, authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for a search tool with no annotation support.
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, concise and front-loaded with purpose. No redundant information, but could be slightly more structured. Still efficient.
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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It mentions only two output fields, leaving users unsure about the full response structure or pagination behavior. Completeness is inadequate for a search 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?
Schema coverage is 50% (three parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what is in the schema. For example, it does not clarify the meaning of 'since', 'limit', or 'status'. With moderate coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 searches Japanese product/food recall notices from a consumer-affairs-agency aggregator. It specifies the scope (Japanese) and type (recalls), and mentions output fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified), distinguishing it from sibling tools like recall_watch_get or recall_watch_timeline.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recall_watch_get or recall_watch_timeline. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate. Sibling tools exist but criteria for choosing between them are unaddressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.