Korean Law 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 return format ('Markdown formatted text') but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with no matches, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or how results are structured beyond format.

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 followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the formatting with section headers could be slightly more integrated into natural language flow.

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 2 parameters with no schema descriptions but good parameter semantics in the description, and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description covers basic functionality adequately. However, for a search tool with multiple similar siblings and no annotations, it lacks differentiation and behavioral context that would be helpful for an AI agent.

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, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'law_id' with format examples ('statute:12345' or just '12345') and 'keywords' as 'space-separated keywords to search for within article text'. This adds meaningful context 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 searches for keywords within articles of a statute, specifying both the action ('search for specific keywords') and the resource ('articles of a statute'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_korean_law' or 'search_legal_terms', which may have overlapping search functionality.

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. With multiple search-related sibling tools (search_korean_law, search_legal_terms, search_statutory_interpretations), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over others.

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