Polish Academic 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 describes the search functionality, result format ('HAL+JSON with full Dublin Core metadata, compacted into a readable summary'), and pagination approach ('0-based pagination'), but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. It provides moderate behavioral context but leaves gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. All sentences contribute useful information about scope, functionality, and syntax. It could be slightly more structured but avoids unnecessary repetition.

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?

For a search tool with 11 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no output schema and no annotations, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and how to use parameters. However, it lacks details about the output structure beyond 'readable summary' and doesn't address potential limitations or error cases.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the filter operator syntax ('Each filter value may include an explicit operator suffix separated by a comma') and listing supported operators, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions.

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 specific action ('Search publications'), target resource ('AGH University of Krakow Repository'), and scope ('theses, dissertations, articles, technical reports, and monographs from AGH'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'agh_get_item' by focusing on search rather than retrieval of individual items.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Search publications in the AGH University of Krakow Repository'), but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like 'agh_get_item' for individual item retrieval. The context is sufficient but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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