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 behavioral traits: it returns 'raw HTML search results page' (not JSON), clarifies there is 'no public JSON API,' and outlines the search_type options. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which would be beneficial for a tool interacting with an external database.

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: the first states the purpose and output format, the second provides usage guidelines and references to sibling tools. Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity (searching an external photo database with raw HTML output) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, output format, search options, and sibling tool integration. However, it could improve by mentioning potential limitations like result structure or error scenarios, which are relevant for a tool without structured output.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning search_type options in Polish (e.g., 'tytul (film title)'), but does not provide additional syntax, format, or usage context for parameters. 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's purpose: 'Search the Fototeka photo database (Polish cinema stills and production photos, Filmoteka Narodowa).' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('Fototeka photo database'), and scope ('Polish cinema stills and production photos'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fototeka_get_photo by focusing on search rather than retrieval of individual records.

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 vs. alternatives: 'Use fototeka_get_photo with a numeric id from links pl/foto/view/{id}.html for one record.' This clearly directs users to the sibling tool for retrieving individual photos after obtaining IDs from search results, establishing a workflow and preventing misuse.

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