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 mentions pagination, which is useful, but doesn't describe what the list contains (e.g., fields, structure), how results are ordered, error handling, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. For a list tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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, resource). There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and pagination but lacks details on output format, usage context, and behavioral traits. For a list tool, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement.

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 fully documents both parameters (page_size and page_number). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what 'chambers and divisions' means in the context of pagination. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 as a 'paginated list of Supreme Court chambers and divisions,' specifying both the action (list) and resource (chambers/divisions). It distinguishes from many siblings by focusing on SAOS and chambers/divisions, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'saos_dump_common_courts' or other SAOS dump tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate, what it's for, or how it differs from other SAOS tools like 'saos_dump_common_courts' or 'saos_dump_judgments.'

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