Polish Academic MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the search system (DSpace 7 discovery), output format (HAL+JSON with Dublin Core metadata), filter operators with defaults, and special syntax for date ranges. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 in two sentences: the first establishes purpose and scope, the second details behavioral aspects like operators and output format. Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and zero-waste.

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 10 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers system context, output format, and operator behavior. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from mentioning response structure or pagination details to achieve full completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing detailed parameter documentation. The description adds value by explaining operator suffixes and defaults for filters, and clarifying date range syntax, but does not significantly expand on parameter meanings beyond what the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('Adam Mickiewicz University Repository'), and method ('via DSpace 7 discovery'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'amu_get_item' by focusing on search functionality 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 implies usage context through mention of 'full-text search with filters' and 'HAL+JSON with Dublin Core metadata,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'amu_get_item' or other search tools in the sibling list. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisite information is provided.

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