search_taxlaw_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It honestly states that the statute collection is metadata/citation-focused rather than full text, which is critical behavioral context. It could further mention rate limits or result structure, but the core behavioral trait is transparently communicated.

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 sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and immediately provides distinguishing guidance. Every sentence 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 the complexity (9 parameters, many collections, no output schema), the description adequately explains the scope and limitation of statute collection. It does not describe return format or pagination behavior, which would improve completeness, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role among siblings.

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 coverage is 67% with most parameters having descriptions. The description does add value by listing the collections in text, reinforcing the enum options, but does not provide additional semantics beyond schema for other parameters like sort or page. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does most of the work.

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 the tool as a comprehensive search of the Korean tax law information system, listing all covered collections. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that for statute text, korean-law-mcp's get_law_text is more accurate, highlighting this tool's complementary role.

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 recommends using this tool in conjunction with korean-law-mcp for precise statute text, providing clear guidance on when to use alternatives. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling specialized search tools (e.g., search_taxlaw_interpretations), leaving the agent to infer the generalist vs. specialist distinction.

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