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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns XML, uses Aleph WWW query prefixes, and includes important server-side failure handling ('SRU gate configuration file is missing'). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but provides substantial operational context.

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 with zero waste. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, the second explains parameter syntax with examples, and the third provides crucial error handling guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information.

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 search tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about the search mechanism, parameter usage, and failure scenarios. The only minor gap is the lack of information about the XML response structure, but given the technical nature of the tool and the schema coverage, this is reasonable.

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 significant value by explaining the 'request' parameter's syntax ('uses Aleph WWW query prefixes') and providing concrete examples ('wrd=kardiologia', 'wti=title words', 'wau=author') that clarify the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic description. It also references external documentation ('see Ex Libris X-Services introduction').

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 ('Search the SUM (ŚUM Katowice) Aleph catalogue via X-Server `op=find`') and resource ('returns XML'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'sum_aleph_present' which serves a different purpose. It provides precise technical context about the search operation.

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 states when to use this tool (for searching via X-Server `op=find`) and when not to use it (if the response contains 'SRU gate configuration file is missing'), providing a clear alternative ('sum_aleph_present may still work for sets'). This gives specific guidance on server failure scenarios.

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