Marlo 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 but only states what the tool does at a surface level. It doesn't describe whether this returns a complete list or paginated results, what format the output takes, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any other operational characteristics.

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 communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with no parameters, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and many similar sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'charter specialist' in this domain, how results are structured, or how this differs from other contact-related tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand proper usage.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose rather than redundant details.

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') and resource ('all available charter specialists'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_charterer_contacts' or explain what distinguishes 'charter specialists' from other contact types in this domain.

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 'search_charterer_contacts' or 'get_vessel_fixture_contacts'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or limitations that would help an agent choose appropriately among the many sibling tools.

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