I create Application for my client. I use some libraries released on GitHub under MIT, BSD and Apache license. I create also documentation (PDF file) where I would like to point what libraries and components I've used.
What details about libraries should I place beside the name/source of library to satisfy MIT, BSD and Apache License conditions?
Is it enough to give only the name and licence of the resource? Or should I put also the Author name and the full text of specific license?
IANAL, but as far as I have seen it in open source projects, a "LICENSES.txt" or "LICENSES.md" is the most common way to do it. In which you group your dependencies based on their licenses (e.g., first block is MIT; second BSD; third Apache2...).
License name + project name should be sufficient.
If you are a bit nicer, then include a link for every license to the official text of the license (e.g., https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT don't use Wikipedia links); or even copy the text of the license there.
If you are even nicer, and the project has only a handful of authors (e.g., it's not Apache Maven with a lot of contributors), then you could list those authors too, but this I haven't seen in widespread use.
P.s.: I kinda have a small OCD, so I would take extra care that I really list all my dependencies. With maven it's doable with the dependencies plugin, although it can get tricky quite quickly (e.g., what do you do with a project which is under Apache2 but has a (L)GPL dependency? It couldn't be Apache2 in the first place, but are you still allowed to use it as Apache2? According to corporate lawyers: as long as you don't know about the (L)GPL dependency you are good to go. This is why I never look for transient dependencies, only direct ones :))
