Polish Academic MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('Returns JSON with items[].id, href, textContent snippets, court metadata') which is helpful, but doesn't cover important aspects like pagination behavior (implied by page parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds value but leaves significant behavioral 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently covers search scope, key parameters, return format, and sibling tool relationship in three sentences. While dense, every sentence adds value and there's no wasted text. The structure moves logically from purpose to usage to output.

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 complexity (28 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains the purpose, basic usage, and return structure, but doesn't address pagination behavior, error handling, or the relationship between the many filtering parameters. For such a complex search tool with rich filtering options, more contextual guidance would be helpful.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by mentioning the SAOS query language link and listing filterable fields, but doesn't provide significant additional parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in the comprehensive schema. It gives a high-level overview but the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('Polish court judgments in SAOS'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'saos_get_judgment' for full text retrieval. It provides concrete scope details about what can be searched (full-text/metadata phrase, dates, case numbers, etc.).

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Use `all` for full-text / metadata phrase' and 'For full text use saos_get_judgment with id.' It clearly distinguishes this search tool from the retrieval tool for full content, giving the agent clear alternatives based on the user's need.

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