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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a fetch/read operation (implied by 'Fetch'), mentions pagination behavior ('Pagination is 0-based'), and reveals it's an API call ('API: GET /data/by-variable/{var-id}'). However, it doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or response format 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. All sentences earn their place by adding context about parameter usage and API details. However, the final API reference could be more integrated with the preceding content rather than appended as a separate note.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the core purpose and some behavioral aspects but lacks details about response format, error handling, and comprehensive usage scenarios. The 100% schema coverage helps, but more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions unit_level and unit_parent_id for scoping, year filtering, and pagination being 0-based, but these are already covered in parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Fetch statistical values'), target resource ('for one variable across territorial units'), and scope ('e.g. all voivodeships'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like bdl_get_variable or bdl_search_variables which likely handle metadata rather than actual data values.

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 ('Set unit_level... and optionally unit_parent_id to scope results; year filters which periods are returned'), but doesn't explicitly mention when to use alternatives like bdl_get_data_by_unit or other search tools. The guidance is practical but lacks sibling differentiation.

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