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 returns HTML lists with links to specific URLs, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, error handling, or performance characteristics. The description adds value beyond the schema but doesn't fully cover all behavioral traits a user might need.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first explains what the tool does and its parameters, the second clarifies the output format and real-world equivalent. No wasted words.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter context, and output format. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the HTML structure or error cases. The mention of the equivalent site helps, but some behavioral aspects remain unspecified.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the significance of 'INNE' or language choice). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Browse the film catalog by first letter of title') and resource ('film catalog'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning it returns HTML links similar to the site 'katalog filmów'. It explicitly mentions the letter range (A-Z, Polish letters, or INNE), which differentiates it from general search tools like fn_repo_search.

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 stating it's for browsing by first letter and returns HTML lists, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like fn_repo_search or fn_repo_browse_kind. It mentions the site 'katalog filmów' as a reference, which provides some contextual guidance but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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