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 adds useful context about authentication requirements and the endpoint path (GET /v1/publications/id/{id}), which helps the agent understand operational constraints. However, it doesn't describe response format, error handling, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Fetch' implies reading).

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 a clear purpose: stating the tool's function and specifying authentication requirements. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more 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 has 1 parameter with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers authentication and endpoint details but lacks information about return values, error cases, or how this differs from sibling tools. For a simple lookup tool, this is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 the single parameter. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (which explains it's a 'Publication object id from search results'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Fetch extended publication metadata') and resource ('by PBN Mongo object id'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pbn_search_publications' or 'pbn_search_persons', which would require a 5.

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 mentions authentication requirements ('Requires PBN_APP_ID and PBN_APP_TOKEN') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pbn_search_publications' or other publication-related tools. There's no explicit when/when-not context or named alternatives.

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