search_taxlaw_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only describes what the tool searches and gives a usage hint, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. The lack of annotation coverage combined with minimal behavioral description results in low transparency.

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 concise (three sentences in Korean), front-loads the main purpose, and includes a helpful recommendation without unnecessary details. Every sentence adds value, making it easy to digest.

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?

For a search tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main searchable categories and provides a usage guideline. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or what to do when no results are found. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, some contextual gaps remain.

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 50% (4 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the docType enum values (01-04 and 05-10 categories) and their correspondence to document types. This helps an agent understand the parameter semantics, though some parameters (display, page, sort) lack additional explanation.

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?

Description clearly states it searches the National Tax Law Information System and enumerates specific document categories (interpretations, inquiries, disputes, etc.). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by recommending this tool for Tax Tribunal decisions and suggesting an alternative if not found. The verb 'search' combined with the resource and scope makes purpose very clear.

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?

Explicitly recommends prioritizing this tool for recent Tax Tribunal decisions and advises using 'korean-law-mcp's search_decisions' as a fallback. This provides clear context on when to use this tool versus an external alternative. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling search tools on the same server, so some guidance is missing for complete differentiation.

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