lazymac-k-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the output format (English JSON) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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?

Extremely concise with zero wasted words—a single sentence listing the tool's purpose and key data types. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a generic input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how to specify which data type to retrieve (e.g., weather vs. holidays), what the return values look like, or any constraints. For a tool with one parameter that's a free-form object, more guidance 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with a single 'params' object described as 'Free-form params object'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as example parameters for different data types (e.g., date for weather, currency pair for FX). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema documents the parameter structure.

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 provides Korean government data in English JSON format and lists specific data types (weather, FX, holidays, transport). It distinguishes itself from some siblings like k_address_geocoder or k_business_validator by focusing on government data, though it overlaps with k_govdata and k_exchange_rate in scope.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like k_govdata or k_exchange_rate. The description implies it's for accessing Korean government data in English JSON, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to similar tools.

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