get_notification_requirementsWhat must be filed before sale in a market: the notification scheme, the responsible-person requirement and, for a product type in a special class, the extra step (review, registration, listing) — each with its source page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | Yes | ||
| product_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful behavioral detail: the returned data includes the notification scheme, responsible-person requirement, conditional extra step, and source page. No contradiction with 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 one compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the exact returned components. Every clause adds informational value with no redundancy.
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 output schema exists and the annotations cover safety, the description is largely complete. It explains the market scope, the conditional product-type behavior, and the source-page attribution. It could be slightly fuller about the behavior when product_type is omitted, but that is a minor 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It does communicate that 'market' is the jurisdiction and that 'product_type' is relevant for determining the extra step for special classes. However, it does not specify acceptable values, formats, or the exact meaning of omitting product_type.
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 what the tool returns: pre-sale notification requirements for a market, with three specific components and source pages. This is distinct from sibling tools like get_market_status or get_label_and_claims, which address different regulatory or product aspects.
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 'before sale in a market' provides a clear usage context: use this tool when you need to know what must be filed prior to selling in a given market. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to route an agent correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.