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 effectively discloses key behavioral traits: the tool is paginated, responses are large (implying performance considerations), and it has a 24-hour cache TTL. This covers important operational aspects beyond basic functionality.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by practical guidance and caching note. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, pagination behavior, performance considerations, and caching. The main gap is lack of detail on output format, but given the tool's relative simplicity, this is acceptable.

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 both parameters. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing 'Use small page_size' as a recommendation, but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already states about page_size and page_number.

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 verb ('dump' implying list/retrieve) and resource ('common courts'), and specifies the content ('names, codes, divisions'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'saos_dump_judgments' or 'saos_dump_sc_chambers' by focusing on common courts specifically.

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 for usage ('Use small page_size; responses are large') and mentions caching behavior ('Cache TTL 24h'), which helps guide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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