Polish Academic MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral aspects: returns specific data fields (title, catalog line, image URL, plain text), respects copyright/terms, and warns against bulk-downloading. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence covers purpose, parameters, and return values. Second sentence adds important behavioral context (copyright). Every word earns its place and 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 covers what the tool does, what it returns, parameter context, and important usage constraints. The main gap is lack of output format details, but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable.

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 fully documents the single 'slug' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the slug comes 'from fototekaslaska_search' and the URL pattern, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details.

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 action ('Fetch'), resource ('one Fototeka Śląska photo page'), and mechanism ('by URL slug'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fototekaslaska_search. It specifies the exact URL pattern (/galeria/{slug}/) and what data is returned.

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 mentioning the slug comes 'from fototekaslaska_search' and provides copyright warnings. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fototeka_get_photo or other get_item tools in the sibling list.

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