Marlo MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'get' without indicating whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with no wasted words, consisting of a single phrase that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 (a read operation with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context such as return data structure, error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools. This leaves the agent under-informed for effective tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'vendor credit details' but does not explain the 'vendor_credit_id' parameter, such as its format, source, or validation rules. With 1 parameter fully undocumented in the schema, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name.

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 vendor credit details' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'vendor credit details', but lacks any distinguishing context about what details are retrieved or how this differs from sibling tools like 'list_all_vendor_credits' or 'get_vendor_details'. This provides only basic purpose without specificity.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'list_all_vendor_credits' for listing multiple credits or 'get_vendor_details' for vendor information. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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