mfds_search_law_notices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool returns amendment notices (not current law), the law_currency field is always 'unknown', and the results link to law.go.kr. This goes beyond the annotation by disclosing limitations and required user verification.

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 extremely concise: two short Korean sentences plus a warning. It front-loads the purpose and key limitation, with no unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema and 100% schema coverage for parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, warning, and key return fields. It mentions the critical always-unknown field. It is slightly lacking in terms of pagination details, but for a search tool this is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (query, law_name, since_date, limit). The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 the tool searches for MFDS law amendment promulgation notices, explicitly distinguishing it from current law text. It specifies what each result item provides (announcement number, dates, URL). This differentiates it from siblings like mfds_latest_version and mfds_status.

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 warns that this is not current law and that the law_currency field is always 'unknown', urging users to check the original URL. While it does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, the warning implicitly guides the agent away from using this for current law queries.

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