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 returns raw HTML, requires a session, and doesn't use KV cache. These are important operational details not inferable from the schema alone. It doesn't mention error handling or response structure, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

Three concise sentences that each earn their place: first states the core functionality, second specifies the return format, third discloses session and caching behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 read-only fetch tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides good context about what it returns (raw HTML) and operational constraints (session required, no cache). It could mention what the HTML contains or typical use cases, but given the tool's straightforward nature, it's mostly complete.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. The description's mention of 'dokładnym numerze katalogowym' aligns with but doesn't expand on the schema's 'standard_number' description.

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 action ('Pobiera' - fetches/retrieves), the resource ('stronę szczegółów pojedynczej normy na WIEDZA' - details page of a single standard on WIEDZA), and the method ('po dokładnym numerze katalogowym' - by exact catalog number). It distinguishes from sibling 'wiedza_search_norms' which searches rather than fetches a specific item.

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 for when to use this tool: when you have an exact catalog number from search results and need the detailed page. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling tools available.

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