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 adds useful context about the default format (jats) and what it includes (abstract, keywords, etc.), but does not mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. It adequately describes the core behavior but lacks operational 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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and key input, the second explains the default behavior and its advantages. It is front-loaded with essential information and efficiently structured, earning its place without 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and some behavioral context but lacks details on return values, error cases, or operational constraints. It is adequate for a simple fetch tool but could be more complete to fully guide an agent without structured metadata.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by explaining the default format (jats) and its benefits ('includes abstract, keywords, affiliations, and references'), but does not provide additional syntax or usage details beyond what the schema specifies. 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 specific action ('Fetch'), resource ('full metadata record for a single article from Biblioteka Nauki'), and key identifier ('by its numeric ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'bn_search_articles' which searches rather than fetches a specific item. It provides a complete purpose statement without being tautological.

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 implies usage context by specifying it's for fetching a single article by ID, suggesting it should be used when you have a specific article ID from search results. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'bn_search_articles' for finding articles without an ID, 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.