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 offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or what format the response takes. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by 'get'.

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, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It's front-loaded in the sense that there's nothing to front-load beyond the basic phrase.

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 that this is a tool with one parameter (0% schema coverage), no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It provides minimal information about what the tool does and zero guidance on usage, parameters, behavior, or differentiation from similar tools. The description fails to provide the necessary context for effective tool selection and 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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the single parameter 'vendor_id' has no documentation in the schema. The description provides no additional parameter information whatsoever - it doesn't explain what a vendor_id is, where to find it, what format it takes, or provide any examples. While there's only one parameter, the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 details' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't explain what 'details' means or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get_customer_details' or 'list_all_vendors'. While the verb 'get' and resource 'vendor' are clear, the description lacks meaningful differentiation from similar tools.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_all_vendors' (likely for listing multiple vendors) and 'get_customer_details' (for a different entity type), the agent receives no indication about when this specific vendor details tool is appropriate versus other vendor-related tools.

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