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. It discloses that the tool 'Uses the public JSON search API (same as the website)' and 'Returns JSON with hits, snippets (mainTitleSnippets, fullTextSnippets), and totalResults,' which provides useful behavioral context about the API source and return format. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 guidelines, and return format. Each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy, and key information is front-loaded.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, usage guidelines, API source, and return format. It doesn't explain error cases or pagination details, but given the schema's thorough parameter documentation, this is reasonably complete.

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 9 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining query syntax or publication_type nuances. 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 performs 'Full-text search in Biblioteka Nauki (Polish open-access articles, books, chapters)' with specific resources mentioned. It distinguishes from sibling 'bn_search_articles' by specifying 'Prefer this tool when the user gives keywords, topics, author names, or titles' versus 'For harvesting by date range or OAI journal set without keywords' for the alternative.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Prefer this tool when the user gives keywords, topics, author names, or titles') and when to use an alternative ('For harvesting by date range or OAI journal set without keywords, use bn_search_articles (OAI-PMH XML) instead'). This directly addresses sibling tool differentiation.

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