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 and does well. It discloses key behavioral traits: returns raw HTML (not JSON), only first page of hits (pagination limitation), and that it calls the same form as the website (no public JSON API). It could mention error handling or rate limits, but covers essential operational context.

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?

Well-structured and appropriately sized. First sentence establishes purpose, subsequent sentences provide usage guidance, parameter context, and limitations. Every sentence earns its place, though could be slightly more front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 4-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good completeness. It explains what the tool does, how to use it, parameter semantics, output format (raw HTML), limitations, and relationship to sibling tool. Could mention authentication needs or exact HTML structure, but covers most essential context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic context beyond the schema: provides concrete examples for local_base (bis01, bis02, etc.), explains find_code options with meaning (WRD = all fields, WST = title, etc.), and clarifies that request uses 'same syntax as the OPAC search box'. This elevates the score above baseline.

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 ('Search the Sejm Library Aleph OPAC'), resource ('books, serials, parliamentary materials'), and scope ('at bs.sejm.gov.pl'). It distinguishes from sibling tool bs_sejm_get_item by explaining this returns a hit list while get_item retrieves full bibliographic cards.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('search... returns raw HTML: the short hit list') versus alternatives ('use bs_sejm_get_item for the full bibliographic card'). Also provides context about limitations ('Only the first page of hits is returned; narrow the query or use get_item after picking doc_number').

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