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 key behavioral traits: it's a search operation (implied read-only), returns raw JSON with specific fields, and includes a rate limit hint ('capped at 100 here'). It also clarifies that 'keyword' matches controlled vocabulary tags, not free text. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, error handling, or pagination details beyond offset.

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, followed by key usage notes and return format, ending with a reference link. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool, the second clarifies parameter semantics, the third lists filterable fields, and the fourth specifies output and API docs. No wasted words.

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 complexity (18 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, key parameter nuances, return format, and API reference. However, it doesn't detail the JSON structure of 'items[]' (e.g., field descriptions) or error scenarios, which could be helpful for a tool with no output schema.

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 18 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'title' is for full-text-in-title search and 'keyword' matches ISAP tags, but doesn't explain other parameters like date ranges or sorting. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search Polish legal acts indexed in ISAP via the Sejm ELI JSON API') and resource ('Polish legal acts'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'isap_get_act' which likely retrieves a single act. It specifies the search mechanism and data source, 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 on when to use this tool: for searching legal acts via the ELI API with specific filters. It distinguishes usage of 'title' vs. 'keyword' parameters, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'isap_get_act' for retrieving a single act). The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions.

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