Marlo MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what format the data returns in, whether there are rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. The description provides no information beyond the basic purpose statement.

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 at just 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 purpose, it lacks the necessary detail to be truly helpful. The single phrase doesn't waste words, but it also doesn't provide enough substance.

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?

For a tool with three required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to compensate for the lack of structured documentation, leaving the agent without necessary information about parameter usage, behavioral characteristics, or output format. The description doesn't provide enough context for the agent to use this 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and three required parameters (period_length, periods_to_compare, start_month), the description provides no information about what these parameters mean or how they should be used. The description doesn't mention any parameters at all, leaving the agent with completely undocumented inputs. This is a critical gap given the schema provides only titles without descriptions.

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 profit and loss data' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_profit_loss' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't specify what type of profit/loss data (e.g., for what entity, over what scope), nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling 'get_voyage_profit_and_loss' which appears to serve a similar purpose for voyages. The description lacks a clear verb+resource combination that would help the agent understand what exactly is being 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?

The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools like 'get_voyage_profit_and_loss' or 'get_balance_sheet'. The agent receives no help in determining whether this is the appropriate tool for retrieving profit/loss information versus other available options.

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