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: it uses a POST API endpoint, returns specific data fields (titles, inventory numbers, tags, object types), explains the 'artworks_only' filtering logic, and mentions the HTTP protocol. However, it doesn't cover error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 three sentences: purpose statement, return values, parameter behavior explanation, and API/UI context. Each sentence adds value, though the final sentence about the UI could be more tightly integrated with the usage guidance.

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 adequate coverage of purpose and basic behavior. However, it lacks information about response format, error conditions, and performance characteristics that would be helpful for an AI agent. The 100% schema coverage helps, but output details remain unspecified.

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 parameter semantics beyond the schema - it only explains the 'artworks_only' parameter's effect on filtering. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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: 'Search the PAU (Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences) art collection catalogue (PAUart, pauart.pl).' It specifies the exact resource (PAUart collection catalogue) and distinguishes it from the sibling 'pauart_get_artwork' tool by focusing on search rather than retrieval of individual 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 about when to use this tool: for searching the PAUart catalogue via its public API. It mentions the UI alternative ('The UI is at http://www.pauart.pl/app') but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or specify when not to use it. This gives good operational context but lacks sibling differentiation.

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