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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it returns HTML (not JSON), uses POST like the website, has pagination (20 hits per page, 1-based), and notes there's no official JSON API. This covers format, method, and limitations, though it could mention error handling or rate limits.

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 every sentence earning its place: it states the purpose, output format, pagination details, and technical method concisely in three sentences, with 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete for a search tool. It covers purpose, behavior, and parameters well, but could improve by detailing the HTML structure or error cases. It's sufficient but has minor gaps.

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 both parameters ('query' and 'page') fully. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning pagination context, but does not provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('BazTOL (Polish technical-science gateway, PUT library)'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'baztol_browse_domain' and 'baztol_get_resource' by specifying it returns a result list from a search operation. It's specific and avoids tautology.

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 (searching BazTOL) and mentions pagination details, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'baztol_browse_domain' or 'baztol_get_resource'). It implies usage through the search focus.

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