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 clearly describes the read-only nature ('Retrieve') and specifies the data source (ICM Open Research Data Repository). However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format details, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 perfectly concise with two tightly focused sentences. The first sentence establishes purpose and scope, while the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 strong purpose clarity and usage guidelines. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details about response format, error handling, and behavioral constraints. The description is complete enough for basic use but leaves operational questions unanswered.

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 complete documentation of the single 'uuid' parameter. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the UUID comes from 'icm_search results' and specifying the repository context, but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what's already in the schema. 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 specific action ('Retrieve full metadata') and resource ('a single item in the ICM Open Research Data Repository') with precise scope ('by its UUID'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'icm_search' by noting the UUID comes from that tool's results, establishing clear differentiation.

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 ('Retrieve full metadata for a single item... by its UUID') and when not to (implied: use icm_search for finding items). It names the alternative tool ('icm_search') and specifies the prerequisite relationship ('UUID is found in the 'uuid' field of icm_search results'), giving complete usage context.

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