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 key traits: the AND logic of filters, the API endpoint structure, the parent_only option for top-level works, and the performance warning about large JSON returns. It does not mention error handling or pagination, but covers most critical operational aspects.

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: it starts with the core purpose, explains API constraints, provides endpoint details, and ends with practical warnings. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff—and it's appropriately sized for a tool with five parameters and no annotations.

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 (filtering with AND logic, multiple parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does well: it covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and performance considerations. It doesn't detail the output format or error cases, but provides sufficient context for effective use in most scenarios.

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 parameters. The description adds some context: it explains the parent_only parameter's effect ('top-level works only, no sub-volumes') and advises on filter combinations to avoid large responses. However, it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high 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 tool's purpose: 'List books matching combined filters (AND).' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('books'), and scope ('matching combined filters'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'wolnelektury_get_book' (single book retrieval) and 'wolnelektury_list_taxonomy' (list taxonomy 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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Requires at least one filter' (prerequisite), 'API does not expose full-text search; this is the supported way to narrow the catalog' (context and alternative method), and 'Filtering only by kind_slug can return a large JSON (~1MB+); prefer adding author or epoch when possible' (performance optimization advice).

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