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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the operation as a 'fetch' (implying read-only) and specifies the API method (GET), which suggests safe retrieval. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the purpose and usage context. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information or redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (fetch operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and usage context but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., response structure, errors) that would enhance completeness for an agent.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the significance of 'variable_id' or 'lang' choices). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Fetch metadata') and resource ('one BDL variable by numeric id'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying the source of the ID ('from bdl_search_variables results'). It also mentions the API endpoint, providing technical context.

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 on when to use this tool: after obtaining a variable ID from 'bdl_search_variables'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'bdl_search_variables' for searching, 'bdl_get_data_by_variable' for data retrieval), which prevents a perfect score.

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