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. It describes the action (metadata retrieval) and format options, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (though no output schema exists). It's adequate but lacks depth on operational context.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and key usage details without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and effective.

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 read-only metadata retrieval tool with 2 parameters (100% schema coverage) but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the what and how, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration context that would help an agent use it more effectively.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the format options, but doesn't provide additional semantic context like DOI formatting examples or use cases for each format. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get metadata') and resource ('for a specific dataset in RePOD by its DOI'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'repod_search' tool which presumably searches rather than retrieves a specific dataset. It's precise about what the tool does.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (to get metadata for a specific dataset by DOI) and offers guidance on format choices, but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'repod_search' for broader queries. The format guidance is helpful but not a full alternative analysis.

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