Polish Academic MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Retrieve'), but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. The description adds some context about UUID sourcing but lacks operational details.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states purpose and method, the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word serves a clear function, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage flow well. It could be more complete by mentioning what 'full metadata' includes or the response format, but given the simplicity of the tool and clear sibling relationship, it's largely adequate.

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 value by explaining the UUID parameter's source ('found in the 'uuid' field of uafm_search results'), providing practical context beyond the schema's format example. However, it doesn't elaborate on UUID validation or error handling.

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 ('Retrieve full metadata'), target resource ('a single item in the University of Applied Sciences in Nowy Sącz Repository'), and method ('by its UUID'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'uafm_search' by mentioning the UUID source, providing clear differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: after obtaining a UUID from 'uafm_search' results. It clearly indicates the alternative tool ('uafm_search') for the prerequisite step, creating a clear usage flow.

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