Polish Academic 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 discloses that the tool 'Returns HTML' and mentions pagination indirectly via the parameter list, but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the HTML output contains. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 in the first sentence. The domain ID list is necessary but lengthy; however, it's structured clearly. No wasted sentences, though the HTML return statement could be integrated more smoothly.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and the domain options. However, it lacks details about the HTML output format, error handling, and comparison with sibling tools. The completeness is minimal but viable given the tool's apparent simplicity.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds value by providing the complete list of domain IDs with their names (24-42), which gives semantic meaning beyond the schema's 'Subject domain id (24–42)'. However, it doesn't add information about the 'page' parameter beyond what's in the 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's purpose: 'Browse BazTOL by subject domain' with the specific resource being 'BazTOL' and action being 'browse'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'baztol_search' by focusing on domain-based browsing rather than keyword searching. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'BazTOL' is (though context suggests a resource collection).

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 by mentioning 'same categories as the portal sidebar' and listing domain IDs, suggesting this tool is for domain-specific exploration. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'baztol_search' or 'baztol_get_resource', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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