e-Gov Law MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses API limitations ('elm parameter is currently disabled due to e-Gov API 400 errors'), size constraints ('optimized per API spec with size limits'), and behavioral specifics for large laws ('returns summary with recommendation to use find_law_article'). It doesn't mention authentication or rate limits, but covers key operational traits.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Note) and front-loads the purpose. Some sentences could be tighter (e.g., 'optimized per API spec with size limits' is vague), but overall it's efficient with no redundant information.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining inputs, outputs, and behavioral constraints. It covers the return format for both normal and large laws, and mentions sibling tools. It could benefit from more detail on error handling or authentication, but is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all 4 parameters in the Args section, adds context about 'elm' being disabled, and clarifies 'response_format' options. However, it doesn't fully explain the relationship between 'law_id' and 'law_num', or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 'Get law content' with the verb 'Get' and resource 'law content', and specifies it's 'optimized per API spec with size limits'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_law_article' or 'search_laws' in the purpose statement itself, though it mentions them later.

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 explicit guidance on when to use alternatives: it states 'Use find_law_article tool for specific article searches in large laws' in the Note section, and implies this tool is for general law content retrieval. This directly helps the agent choose between this tool and its siblings.

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