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: the tool returns a ranked list of profiles, includes profileId and URLs, truncates large responses in summaries, and has a default limit (implied by 'Large responses are truncated'). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 purpose and usage context, the second explains output behavior and optimization advice. Every phrase adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage, output format (ranked list with profileId and URLs), and truncation behavior. However, it lacks details on response structure (e.g., fields beyond profileId/URLs) and error cases, which could be important given the complexity of semantic search.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that 'full_query' can be narrowed for exhaustive results. No additional syntax, format, or usage details are provided beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 performs semantic/full-text search on Ludzie Nauki profiles, specifying the target resource (profiles on ludzie.nauka.gov.pl) and distinguishing it from simple surname searches by mentioning research topics, keywords, or natural-language queries. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like 'ludzie_search' by emphasizing semantic capabilities.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for research topics, keywords, or natural-language queries (not only surnames)') and when to narrow queries ('narrow full_query if you need exhaustive lists'). It also implicitly suggests an alternative ('ludzie_get_scientist' for detailed profile data) by mentioning profileId output.

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