Canada Medical Device Licences MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly doesn't. The 50-item cap is a genuinely useful disclosed constraint, but there is nothing on whether 'PRO' gating requires a paid token, how invalid or malformed licences are reported, or whether partial failures abort the batch.

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 short, front-loaded fragments with no filler. The unexplained 'PRO.' token borders on cryptic rather than informative, but the size is well matched to the 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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey results and failure modes — it says nothing about what 'current validity' returns per licence. For a batch tool where partial results are the norm, this leaves the agent guessing.

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%: access_token is documented in-schema while licences is not. The description does compensate for that gap by establishing that licences is a list of licence numbers capped at 50, but adds no format, normalization, or duplicate-handling detail.

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?

States a specific verb (Check), resource (licence numbers), and the checked property (current validity), plus a batch bound of 50. This implicitly separates it from the single-record sibling licence_detail, though that separation is never made explicit.

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 statement of when to choose this over licence_detail or the device_search tools, and no prerequisites beyond the opaque 'PRO.' prefix. The only routing signal is the 50-licence batch framing, which the agent must infer.

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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is free and returns only the top 5 results with fields such as licence number, first licensed, and end date, but it does not explain matching behavior, ordering, or what happens when no results are found.

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 extremely concise and front-loads the most important attributes: free, what it finds, how, and the top-5 limitation. There is no wasted text.

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 search tool, the description covers the core purpose, cost, result limit, and some returned fields. However, with no annotations or output schema and 0% schema description coverage, more detail on matching semantics and result ordering would be needed for full 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to clarify the single required parameter. It does so minimally by saying 'by trade name,' which is more meaningful than the bare schema property 'name,' but it does not specify exact vs partial matching or formatting expectations.

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 verb and resource: find Health Canada-licensed medical devices by trade name. It also discloses the result scope (top 5), which helps distinguish it from device_search_full, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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 mention of 'FREE' and 'Top 5' implies this is the quick limited lookup, but the description never explicitly says when to use it instead of device_search_full, licence_detail, or batch_licence_check. Usage is inferable but not 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely useful behavior: a hard result cap of 200, that only licensed devices are returned, and that active/expired status is surfaced. It says nothing about the authentication/token requirement behind access_token, whether results are paginated or truncated when the cap is hit, or what happens with non-existent trade names.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the result cap and scope stated early, and no filler. The opaque 'PRO.' token is the only element that consumes space without conveying usable 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?

No annotations and no output schema mean the description is the only source of behavioral detail, and it is thin for a three-parameter search over a licensed-device dataset. Auth requirements, the truncation behavior at 200 results, and the sibling disambiguation are all absent, though the core purpose is recoverable.

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 only 33%, with just access_token documented, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It does clarify that 'name' is a trade name and that 'active_only' relates to the active/expired flag, but it never states what active_only=true actually filters versus what the flag field itself reports, leaving an ambiguity the schema cannot resolve.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: all licensed devices matching a trade name, capped at 200, with an active/expired flag. The 'PRO.' prefix and the 'licensed devices' qualifier hint at how it differs from the plain device_search sibling, but the difference is never made explicit. An agent can infer the purpose but must guess at the sibling distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the sibling tool 'device_search' is never mentioned even though the near-identical name makes disambiguation the single most important thing this description could do. The 'PRO.' marker implies a tier restriction but the condition that selects this tool over device_search is left entirely to inference.

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 burden; it does disclose the returned fields and flags PRO-tier access, which is useful context. However, it omits auth requirements beyond the schema's access_token, does not state read-only/mutation status, and never clarifies what 'original' versus a derived licence means.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the PRO flag and the field list; nothing is redundant. Efficient though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description should do more; it lists returned fields (helpful) and notes PRO status. But it leaves licence_no format, 'original' semantics, and error/auth behavior unaddressed, so an agent lacks full footing for a lookup 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%: access_token is documented in-schema while licence_no has no schema description. The description contributes 'original licence number' to characterize licence_no, but adds no format or syntax detail, so value over the schema is marginal.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve licence details) and resource (licence), and enumerates the return fields (name, device class, licence type, company). It implicitly differentiates from batch_licence_check via 'an original licence number' (singular) but doesn't name the sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus batch_licence_check or device_search. The 'PRO.' prefix hints at a tier/access nuance but no when/when-not or alternatives are stated, leaving usage to inference.

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