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 indicates this is a read-only operation ('Get full JSON metadata') and specifies the scope of returned data. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format beyond 'JSON metadata,' leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 in the first sentence, followed by clarifying details. Every sentence earns its place by specifying inclusions, exclusions, and data sources without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and data scope well. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the structure of the returned JSON metadata to fully guide the agent.

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 both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'numeric id (from ninateka_search items[].id)' for 'vod_id', but does not provide additional syntax, format, or usage details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get full JSON metadata'), target resource ('one Ninateka item'), and key identifier ('by numeric id'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from potential siblings by specifying what it includes ('description, categories, images, type') and excludes ('Does not return streaming URLs or DRM — metadata only'), making its purpose distinct and 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 for when to use this tool: after obtaining an ID from 'ninateka_search items[].id' and when only metadata is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for streaming URLs) or name specific alternative tools, though the exclusion of streaming/DRM implies alternatives exist for those purposes.

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