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. It discloses that the tool requires two requests (session + POST) and doesn't use KV cache, and returns raw HTML. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the HTML structure contains, which are important for a tool with 18 parameters and no output schema.

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 concise and front-loaded with key information in two sentences: it states the purpose and portal, notes the output format and request requirements, and provides a usage tip. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 (18 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and some behavioral traits but lacks details on output interpretation, error cases, or integration with sibling tools beyond 'wiedza_get_standard', making it minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.

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 18 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying search functionality, meeting the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool searches for standards on the WIEDZA portal (wiedza.pkn.pl) and returns raw HTML with a results list. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'norms/standards', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pkn_search' or 'wiedza_get_standard' beyond mentioning the latter for follow-up use.

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 context by mentioning it requires two requests (session + POST) and doesn't use KV cache, and suggests using 'wiedza_get_standard' with exact standard numbers from results. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pkn_search' or other search tools in the sibling list, leaving some ambiguity.

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