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 successfully describes key behavioral traits: the search functionality, pagination behavior (0-based), and the relationship to other tools. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling, which would be helpful for a complete behavioral picture.

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 extremely concise and well-structured in just two sentences. The first sentence covers purpose and main filters, the second covers usage of results and technical details (API endpoint and pagination). Every word earns its place with no wasted text.

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 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, usage guidelines, and key behavioral aspects (pagination). However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe the structure of search results, which would help the agent understand what to expect from the response.

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 already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about filtering by 'name text (N1…N5), subject-id, level, and years' but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's already in the parameter 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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Search') and resource ('BDL statistical variables (characteristics)'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning that results' numeric IDs are used with specific sibling tools (bdl_get_data_by_variable and bdl_get_data_by_unit). This provides clear differentiation from other search tools in the list.

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 (to search variables) and provides clear alternatives for what to do with the results (use with bdl_get_data_by_variable or bdl_get_data_by_unit). It also mentions the specific API endpoint (GET /variables/search), which provides implementation context.

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