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 states the HTTP method (POST) and return type (JSON MetadataDTO), but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, pagination behavior beyond parameters, or whether it's read-only/destructive. This is insufficient for a search tool with 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating authentication from return details), but it avoids redundancy and wastes no words.

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 authentication needs and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (MetadataDTO structure), error cases, or how results are ordered/filtered. Given the complexity and lack of annotations, more behavioral context is needed.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying search via first/last name, ORCID, or object ID, which is already clear from the schema. 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 action ('Search persons') and target resource ('in PBN'), specifying it searches for researchers via ORCID. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pbn_search_publications' or other search tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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 (e.g., other PBN tools or general search tools in the sibling list). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases.

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