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 mentions the return format ('Returns HTML') and hints at content ('metadata, description, video embeds, person links'), which adds context. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance, or authentication needs, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause and efficiently uses two sentences to cover action, parameters, and output. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic context on purpose and return format but lacks details on error cases, rate limits, or full behavioral traits. For a simple read operation with two parameters, it is adequate but incomplete, as it doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data.

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 adds minimal value by referencing the node ID in context ('as in /?q=pl/node/8937'), which provides a usage example, but does not elaborate beyond what the schema provides. Given the high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the example slightly enhances understanding.

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 one repository page'), identifies the resource ('by Drupal node id'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'fn_repo_search' and 'fn_repo_browse_kind' by specifying it retrieves a single page rather than searching or browsing. It also mentions the return format ('Returns HTML'), which helps differentiate its purpose.

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 by specifying it fetches a single page by node ID, suggesting it should be used when you have a specific numeric ID from search results. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fn_repo_search' or provide exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.

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