discover_tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, making safety and idempotency clear. The description adds context about the scope (category search, 80+ tools) but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like response format or whether results are external. 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 a single sentence, containing the tool name, a meta indicator, a usage condition, and the action with examples. It is concise with no wasted words, though the initial 'Korean-law-mcp — [메타]' and the condition could be slightly better organized for immediate clarity.

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's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, strong annotations), the description covers purpose, usage context, and the scope of categories. It doesn't explain the return format, but the parameter description implies it returns matching tools. This is adequate for the complexity level.

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%, with the 'intent' parameter well-described as the category or intent to search. The tool description reinforces this by mentioning 'category search', but adds no new parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 states it performs a category search for specialized tools (80+ types like tax tribunal, treaties, terms) and positions it as a fallback when 'the above tool' fails. This clearly identifies it as a tool discovery meta-tool, distinguishing it from siblings like search_law and get_law_text which handle specific legal content.

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 explicitly says 'when the above tool doesn't work' as a usage condition, implying this is a fallback for failed searches. It also specifies it searches by category for specialized tools, which contrasts with sibling tools that handle specific legal texts or analyses. However, it doesn't name alternatives explicitly.

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