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 the return format ('full JSON including textContent, judges, courtCases, legalBases, referencedRegulations'), which is helpful, but lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or performance characteristics. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes essential details about the parameter source and return format. Every part of the sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately concise.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It covers the purpose, parameter context, and return structure, but lacks behavioral details like error cases or operational constraints. For a read operation, this is minimally viable but could be more comprehensive.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'judgment_id' well-documented in the schema as a positive integer. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the ID sources ('from search results items[].id or /api/search/judgments'), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. 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 specific action ('Fetch one SAOS judgment') and resource ('by numeric id'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'saos_search_judgments' which returns multiple results. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 ('by numeric id from search results items[].id or /api/search/judgments'), indicating it's for retrieving a single judgment after obtaining an ID. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'saos_search_judgments' for initial searches, though this is somewhat implied.

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