Korean Law MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns a list with IDs, which adds some context about output format, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or handles errors. For a search tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and output, with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no annotations), an output schema exists (which handles return values), and the description covers basic purpose and output, it's minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, making it incomplete for optimal agent decision-making in a context with multiple sibling search tools.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't add any semantic details about the 'query' parameter, such as expected format, examples, or constraints. Since there are no parameters explained in the schema, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 legal terms and returns definitions, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('legal terms'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_korean_law' or 'search_law_articles', which may have overlapping domains, so it doesn't achieve full distinction.

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. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it's for general legal term lookup versus specific legal systems or databases. This leaves the agent without clear direction in a server with multiple search-related tools.

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