Polish Academic 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. It discloses the output format (HTML) and the source of IDs, which is helpful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent/safe. For a read operation with no annotations, this is adequate 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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, parameter context, and output format. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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 simple read operation with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states what the tool does, when to use it, the output format, and parameter semantics. The main gap is the lack of behavioral details like error handling or performance characteristics, but given the tool's simplicity, this is reasonably complete.

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 documents the single parameter 'resource_id' as an integer >0 from search/browse results. The description adds value by explaining where these IDs appear ('result lists as links `/baztol_czytelnik/baztol?id=…`'), providing practical context beyond the schema's technical definition. With only one parameter, this is strong compensation.

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 ('Fetch'), resource type ('BazTOL resource description page'), and format ('HTML'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying it retrieves a single resource by numeric ID rather than searching or browsing. It explicitly mentions where IDs come from ('result lists as links'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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: when you have a numeric resource ID from search/browse results. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'baztol_search' or 'baztol_browse_domain' by focusing on single-resource retrieval rather than list operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives.

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