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 adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses caching behavior ('Responses are cached 24h') and performance characteristics ('themes/collections are ~100KB'). While it doesn't mention error handling or authentication needs, it provides more than basic 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?

Perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by usage guidance and behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place: the first establishes purpose, the second provides usage context, and the third adds important operational details.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent context: purpose, usage with siblings, caching, and data size warnings. The only minor gap is lack of output format details (though structure is implied by 'names, slugs, hrefs'), but overall it's highly complete for its complexity level.

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% with a well-documented enum parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the same enum values in parentheses, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about what each taxonomy category represents or when to choose one over another.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('reference data for discovery') with specific categories (authors, epochs, genres, kinds, themes, collections). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning specific tools (wolnelektury_filter_books, wolnelektury_get_book, wolnelektury_get_collection) that use its output, establishing its role as a metadata provider rather than a book/collection fetcher.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('List reference data for discovery') and provides clear alternatives ('Use slugs with wolnelektury_filter_books or wolnelektury_get_book / wolnelektury_get_collection'), giving direct guidance on how outputs should be utilized with sibling tools.

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