WAzion MCP Server

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 adds valuable context about data sources (searching across both online store and CRM), but fails to disclose safety characteristics (read-only vs destructive), pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when no results are found.

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 appropriately brief with the action front-loaded ('Buscar productos'). However, the trailing '[query]' appears awkward and potentially like a template artifact rather than intentional descriptive text, slightly detracting from the structure.

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 this is a search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return format, result structure, or pagination behavior. It provides none of this, leaving agents uncertain about what the tool returns or how to handle large result sets beyond the limit parameter.

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 50% (only 'query' is described in the schema, 'limit' is not). The description mentions '[query]' at the end but adds no semantic value beyond the schema's explanation that it searches product names. It completely fails to compensate for the undocumented 'limit' parameter or explain query syntax (partial vs exact matching).

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 it searches for products ('Busca productos') and specifies the scope includes both the online store ('tienda online') and configured CRM ('CRM configurado'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_customers or search_conversations. However, it doesn't specify that it searches only product names (which the schema reveals), slightly limiting its clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_top_asked_products or global_search. There are no explicit when-to-use conditions, prerequisites (like requiring ecommerce connection), or exclusions mentioned.

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