Canada Natural Health Product Check MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions 'PRO' and a batching limit, but does not clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the operation is read-only, or what happens with invalid or unlicensed NPNs.

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 very concise and front-loads the batching limit and examples. The unexplained 'PRO.' fragment is slightly cryptic, but the core operational sentence is 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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the definition should provide more context about return format and auth behavior. It does cover the core batch-check purpose and result fields, but leaves important operational details implicit.

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 documents access_token, while the description adds useful meaning for npns by stating these are NPNs and that up to 50 can be supplied. However, it still leaves the access_token requirement to the schema and does not add format or validation detail for the NPN array.

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: check NPNs, with batch scope up to 50 at once. It also indicates the returned information (licensed or not, product and company names), which helps distinguish it from a simple single-NPN lookup, though it does not explicitly name npn_check as the single-item alternative.

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 gives a clear usage context with the example of a marketplace or store catalogue and the 50-NPN limit. It does not explicitly state when to use npn_check or npn_detail instead, so it stops short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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 full burden; it discloses the cost ('FREE') and what data comes back, and 'Verify' implies a read-only lookup. It omits permissions/auth needs, rate limits, and crucially what the response looks like when the number is NOT licensed (empty result vs negative status).

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 cost signal first and the value proposition immediately after; no filler. The 'FREE.' fragment is terse but earns its place as a selection differentiator.

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 carry the full burden. It compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the identifier domain, but leaves out the not-found behavior and identifier formatting, which an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single required 'npn' param, so the description must compensate. It does partially by naming the accepted identifier types (NPN and DIN-HM), but gives no format, length, or normalization guidance for what is likely a digits-only or prefix-formatted 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?

States a specific verb (Verify) and resource (NPN/DIN-HM licensing by Health Canada), and enumerates the returned attributes (product, company, form, status). It does not explicitly name how it differs from npn_detail or batch_npn_check, but the single-identifier verification framing 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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance against the two siblings. 'FREE' is a useful cost signal that may steer selection away from metered alternatives, but there is no statement of when to prefer npn_detail (full record) or batch_npn_check (multiple identifiers) over this one.

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 exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the shape of the returned content (ingredients, claims, dose, risk), which is meaningful given there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about the subscription/auth requirement hinted at by 'PRO.' and access_token, nor about behavior for unknown NPNs, partial data, or rate limits.

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?

One compact sentence with the payload front-loaded, but the unexplained 'PRO.' fragment consumes space without conveying actionable meaning. Nothing is padded, yet the single sentence is doing too little work for a 2-parameter 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?

Without an output schema, listing the returned fields is genuinely useful and covers the main 'what do I get' question. Still missing for a tool with no annotations: the auth/tier requirement, the NPN identifier format, and failure behavior — gaps an agent would need to discover by trial.

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 50%: access_token is documented in the schema, but npn has no description anywhere. The description does not state the expected NPN format (e.g., Health Canada 8-digit number) or how the access_token relates to the 'PRO.' tier, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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 names the resource (an NPN) and enumerates the payload — medicinal ingredients with quantities, claims, dose and risk information — which lets an agent tell it apart from npn_check/batch_npn_check (validation) without opening the schema. The verb is only implied by 'detail', and the leading 'PRO.' is never explained, so it falls short of a fully specific verb+resource statement.

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 statement of when to use this over npn_check or batch_npn_check, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the full-record lookup for a single known NPN while the siblings are validators.

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