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. 'Get a bill details' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. It lacks any behavioral context beyond the basic verb, leaving the agent with minimal understanding of how the tool behaves.

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 ('Get a bill details'), which could be efficient if it were informative. However, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise—it lacks necessary details for a tool with 1 parameter and no annotations. The structure is simple but doesn't front-load critical information.

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 1 parameter with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose in context, parameter usage, behavioral traits, or what to expect in return. For a tool in a financial/operational domain with many siblings, this leaves significant gaps.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information about 'bill_id'. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. It doesn't explain what a 'bill_id' is, its format, or where to find it, leaving the parameter undocumented.

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 a bill details' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name with minor grammatical issues. It doesn't specify what 'bill' refers to in this domain or what details are retrieved. While it includes a verb ('Get'), it lacks specificity about the resource scope or what distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_all_bills' or 'get_invoice_details'.

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. There are multiple sibling tools that might relate to bills (e.g., 'list_all_bills', 'get_invoice_details'), but the description doesn't clarify whether this is for detailed views, specific bill types, or other contexts. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative information is mentioned.

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