e-Gov Law MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it 'prefetches for better performance', without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, its impact on cache state, error handling, or rate limits. It mentions 'cache status' in returns but doesn't explain what that entails operationally.

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 appropriately sized with three brief sections (purpose, args, returns), front-loaded with the main function. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections add little beyond what's implied, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely involves caching behavior. It fails to explain what 'prefetch' does (e.g., loads laws into cache), what 'commonly accessed' means, or the structure of the returned dict, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds minimal value by noting 'ctx: FastMCP context for logging', which is redundant but doesn't detract, warranting a baseline score above minimum.

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 states the tool 'prefetches commonly accessed laws for better performance', which provides a vague purpose without specifying what 'prefetch' means operationally or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_law_content' or 'search_laws'. It mentions a resource ('laws') but lacks specificity about scope or mechanism.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_cache_stats' or 'clear_cache'. The description implies a performance optimization context but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear relative to siblings.

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