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: the tool returns raw XML, supports pagination via resumption_token, and filters by date/set. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling, which would be helpful for a complete behavioral picture.

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, parameter context, and usage differentiation. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, behavioral aspects (pagination, output format), and usage context. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by stating it returns 'raw XML,' which provides some guidance.

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 value beyond the schema by mentioning date filtering and setSpec examples, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns. 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 tool's purpose: 'Search (harvest) RCIN metadata via OAI-PMH ListRecords.' It specifies the resource (RCIN metadata), the method (OAI-PMH ListRecords), and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it's for OAI API access rather than interactive website search.

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 vs. alternatives: 'For interactive keyword search on the website, use https://rcin.org.pl/dlibra/ — this tool exposes the OAI API only.' This clearly differentiates it from website-based search and indicates the tool's specific use case for API harvesting.

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