certification_checkCheck which certifications (CE/FCC/FDA) a product type requires for EU/US import and how to verify certificate authenticity (issuer website lookup of cert numbers). Use when unsure if a supplier's certificate is genuine — fake CE certificates are common and cause customs seizures.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the operational method ('issuer website lookup of cert numbers') and makes clear the tool provides verification guidance rather than claiming to perform a live authentication. It could mention limitations or data-source reliability, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 tight sentences with no filler: the main action is front-loaded and the motivating use case follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.
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 one optional parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies enough context: purpose, trigger, and verification method. It could be slightly more complete by explaining its relationship to verify_supplier or explicitly noting that it gives verification guidance rather than a guarantee, but these are minor gaps.
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 sole parameter. It connects 'product type' to the certification lookup, but it never explicitly documents acceptable values, examples, or the behavior when the default empty string is used. The agent can infer the parameter's role, but the semantics are not fully specified.
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 opens with a specific action ('Check which certifications...') and names the exact resource: CE/FCC/FDA requirements for EU/US import plus certificate authenticity verification. This clearly distinguishes it from broader siblings like verify_supplier or audit_checklist.
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?
'Use when unsure if a supplier's certificate is genuine' provides an explicit trigger, and the warning about fake CE certificates and customs seizures adds practical context. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or stating when not to use the tool, so it doesn't earn a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.