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 discloses the return format ('JSON with title, texts (PDF file names), references') which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'fetch' implies it).

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 three sentences: purpose statement, parameter example with explanation, and return format. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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 simple fetch tool with 1 parameter (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, parameter semantics with example, and return format. It could be more complete by mentioning error cases or authentication, but covers the essential usage scenario adequately.

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 the 'eli' parameter well. The description adds meaningful context by explaining ELI structure with a concrete example ('DU/2026/370 — Dziennik Ustaw, year 2026, position 370') and connecting it to search results, which helps the agent understand the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's technical description.

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 ('Fetch one legal act'), resource ('from ISAP'), and identifier type ('by ELI identifier'). It distinguishes from sibling 'isap_search_acts' by specifying retrieval of a single item rather than searching. The example ELI format reinforces the specificity.

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 implies usage when you have an ELI identifier from search results, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'isap_search_acts' or other legal database tools. It provides context about the ELI format being the same as in search results, which helps with workflow understanding.

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