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 and does an excellent job disclosing key behavioral traits: it explains the static nature of the content, provides specific file naming conventions, mentions encoding (iso-8859-2), describes the return format (raw HTML), and explains how to navigate to related content. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating this is a read-only operation, though 'Fetch' strongly implies it.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the first sentence establishes the core purpose, subsequent sentences provide essential context and constraints, and every sentence earns its place with specific, actionable information. There is zero wasted verbiage while maintaining complete clarity.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description provides exceptional completeness. It covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, behavioral characteristics, parameter semantics, encoding information, return format, and navigation strategy. Given the complexity of accessing a static site with specific conventions, this description leaves no significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the context of the path parameter: it provides concrete examples ('indeks 1200.html', 'kamenz/index.html'), clarifies that spaces in filenames are acceptable, and explains what types of files serve what purposes (indeks*.html for tables of contents, dokument*.html for compilations). This goes well beyond what the schema provides.

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 a single page') and resource ('Dokumenty Śląska static site'), with explicit mention of content types (medieval Silesian documents, regesta, seals, iconography). It distinguishes this tool from its only sibling (dokumenty_slaska_medieval_catalog) by specifying this is for fetching HTML pages rather than catalog data.

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 ('There is no public search API — content is static HTML'), when to use specific file patterns ('use indeks*.html for tables of contents and dokument*.html for full compilations'), and how to navigate content ('Follow links from the response to load further pages'). It clearly establishes this as the primary access method for this static site.

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