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 specific permissions, what format the results come in, whether there are rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. The description provides only the most basic functional statement with 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?

The description is extremely concise - just three words - which could be seen as efficient. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being severely under-specified. While it's not verbose or repetitive, it fails to provide necessary information, making this more of an under-specification problem than true conciseness.

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 sanctions case management in what appears to be a financial/maritime system, with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is completely inadequate. It provides only the most basic functional statement without any context about what details are returned, how they're structured, what permissions are needed, or how this differs from related tools.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the single parameter 'source_id' has no documentation in the schema. The description provides absolutely no information about what this parameter represents, what format it should be in, where to find valid values, or what it identifies. This leaves the parameter completely undocumented and mysterious to an AI agent.

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 sanctions case manager details' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. While it indicates the tool retrieves information about sanctions case managers, it doesn't specify what kind of details are retrieved, how they differ from other sanctions-related tools, or what makes this distinct from sibling tools like 'list_all_sanctions_case_manager' or 'search_sanctions'.

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 are multiple related sibling tools (list_all_sanctions_case_manager, search_sanctions, search_individual_sanction) that likely serve different purposes, but the description offers no context 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.