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 covenant' gives no indication of whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it returns a single item or list, what format the response takes, or any rate limits or constraints. The description provides zero 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?

While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to convey essential information about the tool's purpose and usage, making it inefficient for an AI agent trying to understand when and how to invoke this tool among dozens of alternatives.

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 complexity implied by the domain (financial/maritime operations with over 60 sibling tools), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what a 'covenant' is in this system, what data is returned, or how this tool fits within the broader API ecosystem.

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 parameter situation (none required). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and while it doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, the baseline for a zero-parameter tool with complete schema coverage is appropriately set at 4.

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 covenant' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without providing any meaningful information about what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being retrieved, what a 'covenant' represents in this context, or what distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_balance_sheet' or 'get_credit_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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools available (over 60), there's no indication of what specific type of data this tool retrieves or what context would warrant selecting 'get_covenant' over other 'get_' or 'list_all_' tools.

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