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 the return format ('JSON hits with title, URL, id, subtype'), error handling ('If the response is HTTP 403...'), and practical constraints ('origin WAF may block automated clients'). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but provides substantial behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first explains core functionality and return format, the second provides important error handling guidance. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and could be slightly more concise, but every sentence earns its place with valuable 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 provides substantial context: it explains the return format, distinguishes from sibling tools, and includes important error handling guidance. It doesn't explain pagination or result ordering, but covers the essential aspects well given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'Polish keywords' for the query parameter, but this is already covered in the schema's description. The baseline of 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'), target resource ('nac.gov.pl WordPress site (posts and pages)'), and method ('via REST API'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'nac_get_post' and 'nac_get_page' by explaining this tool returns search results while those tools retrieve specific content using IDs from these results.

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 versus alternatives: 'use `nac_get_post` / `nac_get_page` with that id' for retrieving specific content. It also includes important context about HTTP 403 errors and network retry strategies, which are practical usage considerations.

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