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. It only states the action ('get') without explaining whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how data is returned (e.g., format, pagination), or any side effects like rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that likely accesses financial data.

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 external loan details'), which could be efficient if it were informative. However, it's under-specified rather than appropriately sized—it lacks necessary details about purpose, usage, or parameters. While front-loaded, it fails to earn its place with substantive content.

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 of financial data tools, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the agent without guidance on behavior, parameters, or return values. This is insufficient for a tool that likely requires precise invocation.

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 0% description coverage, with one required parameter 'application_id' undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what an 'application_id' is, its format, or how it relates to external loans. For a single parameter with no schema documentation, this is a significant gap.

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 external loan details' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the resource ('external loan details') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'get' and doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_marlo_loan_details' or 'list_all_external_loans'. The purpose is vague about what specific details are retrieved.

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. With siblings like 'get_marlo_loan_details' and 'list_all_external_loans', the description fails to indicate whether this tool is for individual loan details, batch retrieval, or filtering. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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