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 clearly states what the tool returns (raw HTML with metadata) and what it doesn't return (full-resolution image file), which is valuable context. However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format details beyond 'raw HTML'.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second provides important clarifications about what is and isn't returned. Every word serves a purpose and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 read operation with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and distinguishes it from search operations. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about error handling or response structure, though the core functionality is well-covered.

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% with the single parameter well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning where IDs come from ('search results and collection links on fototeka.fn.org.pl'), but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage or constraints beyond what's already in the schema.

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's purpose with specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Fototeka HTML page for a single photo'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying it retrieves a single photo by ID rather than performing searches or getting different types of items. It explicitly mentions what it returns ('raw HTML with metadata, description, related links') and what it doesn't return ('not the full-resolution image file').

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: 'by numeric id' from specific sources ('search results and collection links on fototeka.fn.org.pl'). It also distinguishes from alternatives by specifying this is for single photo retrieval rather than search operations, with a clear sibling tool 'fototeka_search' available for search functionality.

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