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 effectively describes key behaviors: the search is name-based ('by name fragment'), it's a read operation (implied by 'Search'), it uses pagination ('Pagination is 0-based'), and it specifies the return format ('Returns JSON (subject id, name, children ids, levels)'). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and technical details. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The front-loaded purpose statement immediately clarifies the tool's function.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: it explains the purpose, usage context, key behavioral aspects (pagination, return format), and references the API endpoint. However, it doesn't fully describe the JSON structure details or potential error cases, leaving some gaps in operational understanding.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning only that the 'name' parameter is a 'fragment of subject name' and that pagination is '0-based' (which is already in the schema). It doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

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 ('Search BDL (GUS) thematic subjects by name fragment') and resource ('thematic subjects'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like bdl_search_units and bdl_search_variables. It explicitly mentions the goal of discovering subject IDs before other operations, providing clear differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use to discover subject IDs before listing variables or drilling into the tree'), providing clear context and purpose. It distinguishes this from other subject-related operations by framing it as a discovery step, though it doesn't name specific alternative tools for similar searches.

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