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 traits: the tool returns raw HTML with specific content (result list with titles, excerpts, update dates), uses 0-based pagination, and operates on the public website. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs, which would be useful for a public search tool.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, output format, pagination, and usage alternatives. Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 mostly complete. It covers purpose, output format, pagination, and usage context. However, it lacks details on response structure (e.g., HTML parsing guidance) and potential limitations (e.g., result limits, timeout behavior), 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 semantic value beyond the schema, mentioning only 'pagination is 0-based' which relates to the 'page' parameter. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without significant enhancement.

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 specific action ('full-text search'), target resource ('Polski Komitet Normalizacyjny main website'), and scope ('via the public Solr-backed view'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like wiedza_search_norms for norms DB searches. It explicitly differentiates from alternatives, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it specifies that for PN search/details, use wiedza_search_norms/wiedza_get_standard, and for purchases, see sklep.pkn.pl. This clearly defines the tool's context and exclusions, helping the agent choose correctly among siblings.

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