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 does well by specifying the return format ('raw HTML'), what's included ('metadata, credits, image links'), and clarifying there's 'no separate JSON API.' However, it doesn't mention potential error cases, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'fetch' implies reading). The description adds useful context but lacks comprehensive behavioral 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?

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core functionality and parameter source, while the second provides implementation details (URL pattern) and output characteristics. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's operation and constraints.

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 provides good completeness. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, return format, and implementation details. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral context like error handling or response structure. The description compensates well for the lack of structured metadata but doesn't fully bridge all gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds valuable semantic context by explaining where the poster_id comes from ('from gapla_search links plakat/ID/…') and how it relates to the URL pattern. This provides practical guidance beyond the schema's technical validation rules, though it doesn't add 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('fetch', 'returns') and resources ('Gapla poster detail page as HTML', 'raw HTML'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it retrieves individual poster details by ID, unlike gapla_search which presumably searches for posters. The description explicitly mentions the URL pattern and what the tool returns, making the purpose unambiguous.

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: to fetch a single poster detail page by numeric ID, specifically IDs obtained from gapla_search links. It mentions the URL pattern and that the slug is optional, giving practical usage hints. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the connection to gapla_search is implied.

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