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 states the tool searches for statutory interpretations but doesn't describe how results are returned (e.g., pagination, sorting), any rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a search tool with no annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded in a single sentence with zero waste. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (a simple search with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks behavioral context and parameter details, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.

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 no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the single parameter 'query' is self-explanatory for a search tool. The description doesn't elaborate on query syntax, examples, or constraints, so it doesn't compensate for the low coverage, but the baseline is appropriate given the straightforward parameter.

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: 'Search for statutory interpretations' with the specific resource 'authoritative interpretations by Ministry of Government Legislation.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and identifies the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_korean_law' or 'search_law_articles,' which likely search different legal resources.

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 doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'search_korean_law' or 'search_law_articles' that might serve similar purposes. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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