Polish Academic MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination, which is useful, but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format of enrichment tags). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads key information: 'SAOS dump: paginated list of enrichment tags from the SAOS enrichment module (labels for judgments).' It avoids redundancy and waste, clearly stating the tool's core function without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks output schema information, which isn't required to explain return values, but with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., what the list contains, any limitations). It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in transparency and guidelines.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for page_size and page_number. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying pagination, which is already evident from the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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: 'paginated list of enrichment tags from the SAOS enrichment module (labels for judgments).' It specifies the verb ('paginated list'), resource ('enrichment tags'), and source ('SAOS enrichment module'), distinguishing it from other SAOS tools like saos_dump_judgments or saos_search_judgments. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as saos_dump_common_courts, which may have similar paginated list functionality.

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 when to choose this over other SAOS tools like saos_search_judgments or saos_get_judgment, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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