Polish Academic MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it fetches 'public detail' (implying read-only access), describes the return format ('compact JSON object'), and mentions an alternative human-readable page via profileUrl. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements for a public API.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and key data elements, the second provides usage guidance and output format. Every element serves a clear purpose with zero 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?

For a single-parameter read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what data is returned, provides usage context, and mentions the human-readable alternative. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the structure of the 'compact JSON object' being returned.

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 fully documents the single parameter. The description adds value by explaining where the profile_id comes from ('from ludzie_search or ludzie_semantic_search') and providing context about its format ('e.g. jhMVc1vG5Yz'), though this example is also in the schema. With 0 parameters requiring additional semantics beyond schema coverage, baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 public detail'), target resource ('one Ludzie Nauki profile'), and key data elements (ORCID, academic degrees/titles, top keywords). It distinguishes this tool from its siblings ludzie_search and ludzie_semantic_search by focusing on retrieving detailed information for a single profile rather than searching.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to get details for a single profile identified by profile_id from ludzie_search or ludzie_semantic_search. It provides clear alternatives by naming the sibling tools that should be used for searching rather than fetching individual profiles.

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