get_other_law_designations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool returns overlays with specific fields (governing_law, triggers_priority_delegation) and explains the consequence of the flag being true. However, it doesn't state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The behavioral traits are partially disclosed but not comprehensively.

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 two well-structured sentences, front-loading the core information (what the tool returns and the list of layers) and then providing important conditional behavior. It is efficient with no filler, though the inclusion of Korean text may require translation for some users.

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 tool has one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (governing_law and a flag) and the conditional logic for priority delegation. It does not cover error handling or performance implications, but for a retrieval tool of this complexity, the information is largely sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'query', specifying it accepts a Korean address or PNU. The description adds no further parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states it returns '다른 법령에 따른 지정사항' overlays and lists ~38 specific categories (농지, 산림, etc.). The verb 'Return' and the resource specification make the purpose unambiguous. It is well-distinguished from sibling tools like 'get_zoning' or 'get_land_attributes' which deal with different types of parcel data.

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 description provides a conditional usage note (when the flag is true, look up provisions via korean-law MCP first) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no 'when-not' guidance or mention of alternative sibling tools for similar queries, leaving the context of usage partially implied.

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