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 traits: it returns HTML result pages (not JSON API), explains the format of facet filters, and clarifies the 0-based paging. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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, followed by concise details on output format and parameter usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, output format, and parameter nuances, but lacks details on error cases or performance limits, which could enhance completeness for a search tool with no structured 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context for facets (e.g., examples like bundle:doc) and page (0-based index), but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond what the schema offers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 searches the Filmoteka Narodowa digital repository via Apache Solr, specifying both the target resource (the repository) and the method (Solr search). It distinguishes from siblings like fn_repo_browse_kind and fn_repo_film_index by focusing on search functionality, making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (searching the repository) and mentions optional facets and page parameters, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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