Korean Law 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 describes a read operation ('Get a list'), implying it is non-destructive, but does not address other behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to understand quickly. It efficiently communicates the tool's function and key input details.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, read operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema may handle return values, but the description should still address when and how to use the tool effectively.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'law_id' by explaining it as 'The ID of the law' and providing examples (e.g., '12345' or 'statute:12345'), which clarifies its format and usage. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, though it could further detail constraints or validation rules.

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: 'Get a list of attached forms and tables (별표/서식) for a specific statute.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('attached forms and tables'), and target ('for a specific statute'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_external_links' or 'read_legal_resource', which might also retrieve related statute information, so it falls short of 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 mentions the required 'law_id' parameter but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not indicate if this tool is for retrieving attachments only, as opposed to other sibling tools that might handle different aspects of statutes, leaving usage unclear.

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