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 provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, what format the details are returned in, whether there are rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. The description is completely inadequate for a tool that presumably retrieves 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 (three words) but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks any additional context that would help an agent understand how to use the tool effectively.

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/loan data retrieval, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is completely inadequate. It provides minimal information about purpose and zero guidance on usage, parameters, behavior, or expected results. For a tool that likely returns structured financial data, this level of documentation is insufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. The single parameter 'application_id' is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description doesn't mention the parameter at all, provide examples of valid application IDs, explain where to find them, or clarify what format they should be in.

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 marlo loan details' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minor grammatical adjustment. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'marlo loan details', but doesn't clarify what 'marlo loan' refers to or what specific details are retrieved. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_external_loan_details' or 'list_all_marlo_loans'.

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 zero guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple related tools in the sibling list (get_external_loan_details, list_all_marlo_loans, get_balance_sheet, get_credit_score) that might serve similar purposes, but no context is given about when this specific tool is appropriate versus those alternatives.

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