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 behavioral traits: the tool returns HTML format, explains parameter sourcing from search results, clarifies the stability of the results ('Stable per record'), and mentions caching suitability. However, it doesn't address potential error conditions, 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 with three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core functionality, explaining parameter usage, and describing behavioral characteristics. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the most critical information appears first.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 100% schema description coverage, but no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the HTML return format, parameter sourcing, result stability, and caching suitability. The main gap is the lack of information about the output structure or format details, which would be helpful since there's no output schema.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some contextual value by explaining that parameters should be copied from 'item-global links from bs_sejm_search results' and that 'sub_library is usually BS for main stacks', but doesn't provide significant additional semantic information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('one Sejm Library OPAC bibliographic record as HTML'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools by referencing 'bs_sejm_search results' and contrasting with 'session-bound full-set-set links'. This provides clear differentiation from other 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Pass doc_library and doc_number exactly as in item-global links from bs_sejm_search results' and 'sub_library is usually BS for main stacks — copy from the link if different'. It also provides context about when not to use alternatives: 'Stable per record (unlike session-bound full-set-set links); suitable for caching' which helps distinguish it from other potential approaches.

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