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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the API type (JSON), pagination details, return format (raw JSON with structure), and platform requirement (BROWSER). However, it lacks details on rate limits 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential details in a logical flow (API usage, parameters, results). Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete, covering purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters. It falls short of a 5 by not detailing error cases or response examples, which would enhance completeness for a search tool.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by noting that 'keyword' is required and 'platform' must stay BROWSER, but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Search Ninateka') and resources ('free VOD: films, docs, theatre, audio, etc.'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'ninateka_get_vod' by focusing on search functionality rather than retrieval of specific items.

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 (searching Ninateka's content) and mentions a sibling tool ('ninateka_get_vod'), but does not explicitly state when to choose one over the other or list exclusions, keeping it from a perfect score.

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