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. It only states the action ('Get') without indicating whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format might be, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide necessary behavioral context.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action and resource. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick scanning while still conveying the basic intent.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on what 'estimates sheet' means, what data it returns, or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool in a context with many sibling data retrieval tools, more contextual information is needed to guide proper use.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't incorrectly suggest any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter information is required beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Get all estimates sheet' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'estimates sheet' but lacks specificity about what 'all' entails or what format/scope the estimates sheet covers. Compared to sibling tools like 'get_estimate_sheet_details' (which likely provides detailed data), this tool's purpose is vague and doesn't clearly differentiate itself.

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. Given sibling tools like 'get_estimate_sheet_details' (for detailed data) and various list tools (e.g., 'list_all_bills'), the description offers no context on whether this tool retrieves summaries, aggregates, or raw data, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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