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 offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the return format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with unknown behavioral traits.

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 concise with only two words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide necessary information, making it inefficient for the agent's understanding. It lacks any structured explanation or front-loaded key details.

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's complexity (1 required parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use it correctly, or any behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool effectively.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter 'customer_id' is undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about this parameter—no explanation of what constitutes a valid customer_id, where to find it, or format requirements. This leaves the parameter's semantics completely unspecified.

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 customer details' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'details' include or differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_all_customers' or 'get_vendor_details' that might retrieve similar information.

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 like 'list_all_customers' or other get_* tools. The description offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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