Marlo MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving a summary but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format looks like (e.g., aggregated totals vs. detailed lists), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in tool definitions.

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 has no input parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs, return format, or error handling, which are important for a tool that retrieves financial summaries. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. It implies the tool operates without inputs, which is clear from context, so it meets the baseline for parameter semantics without needing extra explanation.

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 ('Get summary') and target resource ('all borrowers with their loan statistics and portfolio totals'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_borrower_financial_details_for_lender' or 'list_all_lendors', which might offer overlapping or related data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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_borrower_financial_details_for_lender' for detailed per-borrower data or 'list_all_lendors' for lender lists. Without explicit context or exclusions, users must infer usage based on the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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