Amazing Marvin MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'efficient API filtering' but doesn't explain what this means operationally - whether it's paginated, rate-limited, requires authentication, returns structured data, or has any side effects. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The two-sentence format is front-loaded with the main functionality. However, the 'Args:' section formatting could be more integrated with the main description text.

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 presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description adequately covers the basic purpose and one parameter. However, for a tool with 2 parameters (one completely undocumented), no annotations, and multiple sibling alternatives, it should provide more context about usage scenarios, behavioral characteristics, and the undocumented 'debug' 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, the description adds crucial value by documenting the 'date' parameter's format (YYYY-MM-DD) with an example. However, it completely omits the 'debug' parameter, leaving half of the parameters undocumented. The description compensates well for the documented parameter but fails to address the undocumented one.

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 'Get' and resource 'completed tasks for a specific date', with additional context about 'efficient API filtering'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_completed_tasks' (without date filtering) or 'get_all_tasks', leaving room for ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 like 'get_completed_tasks', 'get_all_tasks', or 'get_due_items'. It mentions 'efficient API filtering' but doesn't explain what makes it efficient or when this efficiency matters compared to other retrieval methods.

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