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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint structure, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state this or discuss other behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. The description provides basic operational context but misses important behavioral details.

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 reasonably concise with two sentences that cover the core functionality and API details. The first sentence clearly states what the tool does, and the second provides technical implementation context. There's no unnecessary verbiage, though the API endpoint detail might be more technical than needed for an AI agent's understanding.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (data format, structure), doesn't mention error handling or constraints beyond the basic parameter requirements, and doesn't provide context about the data domain or typical use cases. The API endpoint reference is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and output information.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'Optional year list and paging' which corresponds to 'years', 'page', and 'page_size' parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 action ('Fetch values') and target ('for one territorial unit for one or more variables'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bdl_get_data_by_variable' or 'bdl_get_variable', which appear to be related data-fetching tools in the same domain.

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 some usage context by stating 'Requires at least one variable id' and mentioning optional parameters, but it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bdl_get_data_by_variable'. The API endpoint reference adds technical context but not comparative guidance.

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