Korean Law MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by specifying what the tool generates (external links to official government website) and the format of the output (Markdown formatted links). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors, but provides sufficient operational context for a link generation tool.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, bulleted usage guidelines, and separate sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 tool's simple nature (single parameter, link generation), the description provides complete context: purpose, usage scenarios, parameter explanation, and output format. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it appropriately focuses on when and how to use the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'resource_id' parameter's purpose, format examples, and source context ('obtained from search results'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 with specific verbs ('generate external links') and resource ('National Law Information Center website'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on external link generation rather than search, comparison, or content retrieval functions.

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 usage scenarios in a bulleted list: viewing original sources, sharing direct links, and accessing additional features. It distinguishes when to use this tool versus alternatives by mentioning features 'not available via this MCP'.

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