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 mentions authentication requirements ('Requires PBN_APP_ID and PBN_APP_TOKEN') and the return format ('Returns JSON (MetadataDTO)'), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't describe pagination behavior, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation, leaving significant gaps for a search tool with 12 parameters.

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 two sentences: one stating the purpose and endpoint, another listing filter capabilities. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the filter list to a separate line for better scannability.

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 complexity (12 parameters, search functionality) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers authentication, return format, and filterable fields, but doesn't explain the response structure (MetadataDTO), pagination behavior, or error cases. For a search tool without output schema, more detail about expected results would be beneficial.

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 12 parameters thoroughly. The description lists filterable fields ('Filter by title, DOI, ISBN, ISSN, year range, type, authors, pagination') which aligns with the schema but adds minimal semantic value beyond what's already in parameter descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the 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 tool's purpose: 'Search publications in Polska Bibliografia Naukowa (PBN)'. It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('publications'), and mentions the target system (PBN). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pbn_search_persons' or 'pbn_get_publication', which would be needed for 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'pbn_search_persons' for searching authors or 'pbn_get_publication' for retrieving specific publications, nor does it specify prerequisites beyond authentication requirements. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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