Polish Academic MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it parses HTML (not using a JSON API), matches form parameters, and returns URLs with slugs for follow-up retrieval. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, error handling, or rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with essential purpose, followed by specific usage notes and parameter context. Every sentence adds value: first sets context, second explains technical implementation, third details parameters, fourth guides next steps. No wasted words.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, technical constraints, parameter usage, and integration with sibling tools. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of search results) and potential limitations like timeouts or result count, which could be helpful.

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%, providing clear documentation for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only briefly mentioning that 'year_period' is optional and corresponds to form 'y', which is already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific photo archive (Fototeka Śląska) with details about the content (rural Silesia/Opole region historical photos) and technical context (WordPress site, HTML parsing). It distinguishes from its sibling 'fototekaslaska_get_photo' by specifying it's for search versus retrieval.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (searching the archive) versus the alternative ('fototekaslaska_get_photo' for retrieving specific photos using slugs from results). Also provides guidance on optional parameters like omitting 'year_period' to search all periods.

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