lazymac-k-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool scans URLs and returns a risk score and report, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only or mutative, authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the report format entails. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and front-loaded, using just one sentence to convey the core functionality. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 of a compliance scanner with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague input parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format (beyond mentioning 'risk score + violations report'), error cases, or how to interpret results. For a tool that likely involves nuanced legal compliance, more context is needed.

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, with a single parameter 'params' described as a 'Free-form params object'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what specific params might be needed (e.g., URL details, scan options). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't compensate for the vague schema description.

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's purpose: scanning URLs for Korean PIPA compliance and returning a risk score and violations report. It specifies the verb ('scanner'), resource ('URL'), and output format. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., k_business_validator, k_company_lookup), which might also involve compliance checks, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for PIPA compliance, or compare it to sibling tools like k_business_validator that might handle other types of validation. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit instructions.

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