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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the search system (DSpace 7 discovery), result format (HAL+JSON with Dublin Core metadata), operator syntax with defaults, and supported operators. It misses details like pagination behavior or error handling, but covers essential 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 in two sentences: the first establishes purpose and scope, the second details operational specifics. Every phrase adds necessary information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 13 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the search system, filters, operators, and result format. However, it lacks information on response structure (e.g., pagination metadata) which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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 documents all 13 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining operator suffixes and defaults for filters, but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema descriptions offer. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 ('Search publications'), the target resource ('University of Applied Sciences in Nowy Sącz Repository'), and the method ('via DSpace 7 discovery'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'uafm_get_item' by focusing on search rather than retrieval of individual items.

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 implies usage for searching publications with various filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'uafm_get_item' or other search tools in the sibling list. It provides context about supported filters but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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