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 for behavioral disclosure. It usefully describes the result format ('HAL+JSON with Dublin Core metadata'), filter operator syntax, and supported operators. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or pagination behavior beyond the parameters. The description adds value but leaves significant gaps for a search tool.

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 appropriately concise at three sentences, with the first sentence establishing core functionality, the second detailing capabilities, and the third explaining operator syntax. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. While efficient, it could be slightly more structured by separating filter details from operator syntax.

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 moderate complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the search scope, result format, and operator system well, but lacks information about error handling, performance characteristics, authentication, and how results are structured beyond metadata format. For a search tool without output schema, more detail about response structure would 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%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about filter operators and their defaults, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the parameter descriptions. It mentions 'full-text search with filters' which aligns with the schema but doesn't enhance understanding of individual parameters.

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 research data and publications in the ICM Open Research Data Repository... via DSpace 7 discovery.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('research data and publications'), and target system, distinguishing it from siblings like 'icm_get_item' which retrieves individual items rather than performing searches.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the tool's capabilities but doesn't indicate when it's appropriate compared to other search tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'icm_get_item' for retrieving specific items, or other repository-specific search tools). There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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