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 that the tool returns 'raw JSON array of listing objects' and mentions WordPress REST API limitations for ordering. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or pagination details beyond the parameters. The description adds some context but leaves gaps for a search tool.

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 concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's purpose, explaining parameter usage, and describing the return format. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary repetition. The structure is logical and efficient.

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 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks details about the structure of returned objects, error handling, and operational constraints that would be helpful for an agent. The description is complete enough for basic usage but has room for improvement.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the optional nature of search/category parameters and references blz_listing_categories for term IDs, but doesn't provide additional semantic context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 searches 'legal digital culture sources in Baza Legalnych Źródeł' and specifies it uses WordPress REST for listings CPT. It distinguishes from siblings like blz_get_listing (which retrieves single items) and blz_listing_categories (which provides category IDs), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other search tools on the server. The verb 'search' is specific and the resource 'legal digital culture sources' is well-defined.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning 'optional full-text search and/or listing_cat term ID' and referencing blz_listing_categories for IDs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like blz_get_listing or other search tools on the server. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive about alternatives.

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