WayStation MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool searches but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like: what search criteria are used (content, metadata, titles), whether results are paginated, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. 'Searches for' implies read-only, but this isn't explicitly confirmed.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core action and has zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is searched and how.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'match', how results are returned (list format, fields included), sorting, or limitations. For a tool that likely returns multiple results, more context about output behavior is needed.

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% (the single 'query' parameter is fully described in the schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema ('Search query to find matching Office documents'). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the 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 ('searches for') and resource ('Office documents') with a specific query string. It distinguishes from siblings like 'listOfficeDocs' (which lists without query) and 'readOfficeDoc' (which reads a specific document). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'searchNotion' or 'searchAsanaTasks' which search different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'searchOfficeDocs' versus 'listOfficeDocs' (for browsing), 'recentOfficeDocs' (for recent items), or 'readOfficeDoc' (for specific documents). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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