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 effectively describes key behaviors: it's a read-only retrieval operation (implied by 'retrieve'), returns JSON with specific data fields (water level, flow rate, etc.), covers all active stations in Poland, and notes the data refresh rate (~hourly). It lacks details on error handling or rate limits, but covers core operational aspects well.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by additional details in two clear sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does and returns, the second specifies data freshness. There is no wasted text or redundancy.

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 complexity (simple retrieval with no parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the purpose, data format, scope, and refresh rate. It lacks details on output structure (e.g., JSON schema) or error cases, but for a zero-parameter tool, this is sufficient though not exhaustive.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate since no parameters exist, but it doesn't detract from the schema's completeness.

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 ('retrieve', 'returns') and resources ('current hydrological station readings', 'all active hydrological stations in Poland'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like imgw_meteo, imgw_synop, and imgw_warnings by specifying it deals with hydrological data rather than meteorological, synoptic, or warning data.

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 ('retrieve current hydrological station readings'), and the data source and refresh rate are specified. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., imgw_meteo for weather data), which prevents a perfect score.

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