US Consumer Product Recalls (CPSC) MCP

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 usefully discloses a hard 50-item batch cap (not encoded in the schema) and the 'PRO' paid/subscriber tier, which hints at an auth requirement. It says nothing about what a check returns (matches, severity, per-item status) or rate-limit behavior for a batch operation.

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 compact sentences with the batch limit and audience front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The leading 'PRO.' token is terse but functional as a tier marker.

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, so the description should describe the return shape, and it does not — the agent cannot tell whether it gets per-item recall matches, a boolean flag, or a summary. For a batch screening tool with two params, that is the main missing piece.

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 the schema, but the items array has no description and no maxItems constraint. The description partially compensates by defining items as products/brands and imposing the 50-item limit, but it never says what form each string should take (brand name, product name, model number).

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 and resource: check a list of products/brands against CPSC recalls, and names the target audience (resellers, marketplace sellers, thrift stores). It does not distinguish itself from the siblings product_recalls and recall_search, so the agent cannot tell from the description alone which one fits a given query.

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 phrase 'products/brands you sell' plus the audience list implies a batch inventory-screening use case, and 'up to 50' implies a bulk check. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. product_recalls/recall_search guidance and no stated prerequisites beyond what the schema implies.

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 and does disclose meaningful behavior: cost ('FREE'), a hard result cap ('Latest 5'), the data source/geography (US CPSC), and the sort (newest first). It does not mention authentication needs or what happens when nothing matches, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 sentence with the cost marker front-loaded, then scope, count, source, and filtering behavior. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts come first.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema lookup tool, the description covers return scope (5 items), source, sort order, and the default no-keyword behavior. Only edge behavior and the relationship to recall_search are missing.

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 must explain the single keyword parameter -- and it does, defining it as a product or brand keyword and stating that omitting it returns the newest recalls overall. Only the expected format (phrase vs. single token) is left unspecified.

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 and resource: retrieves the latest 5 US consumer product recalls from CPSC, with the count and scope baked in. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling recall_search, which sounds like an overlapping capability, leaving the agent to guess which recall tool to pick.

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?

'matching a product or brand keyword, or the newest overall' implies the two usage modes (filtered vs. unfiltered), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer recall_search. The agent can infer the call pattern but not the tool-selection rule.

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 says nothing about authentication requirements (the schema reveals an access_token), result size, pagination, ordering, or whether filters combine with AND/OR, and the unexplained 'PRO.' marker adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and filters, which is efficient. But the leading 'PRO.' token is cryptic filler that consumes attention 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?

A six-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema should explain at minimum what comes back and how filters interact. Neither is covered, and the authentication requirement only surfaces in the schema.

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 only 17%, so the description has to compensate, and it partially does by naming the five filterable dimensions. However, it adds no format detail for 'since' (no ISO/date format guidance) and no indication of whether matches are exact, substring, or multi-value, and it never mentions the access_token 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?

Names the resource (CPSC recalls) and the filter dimensions (product, manufacturer, retailer, hazard, date range), which is specific enough to act on. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling product_recalls, despite that being the obvious confusion point.

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 prefer this tool over product_recalls or inventory_check, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The 'PRO.' prefix hints at a paid tier but never explains what that implies for use.

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