Marlo MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Get voyage details' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it has side effects, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the output takes. This leaves the agent with no understanding of the tool's behavior beyond the minimal verb.

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 results in under-specification rather than efficient communication. While front-loaded, it lacks the substance needed to be truly helpful, making it more sparse than optimally concise.

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 implied by sibling tools (multiple voyage-related operations), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'voyage details' includes, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, with only a single parameter 'voyage_id' documented structurally as a UUID. The description provides no additional information about what a voyage_id represents, where to find it, format expectations beyond UUID, or how this parameter affects the operation. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 voyage details' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't explain what 'voyage details' includes or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get_voyage_profit_and_loss' or 'get_voyage_laytime'. The verb 'get' is generic and doesn't clarify the scope or nature of the retrieval operation.

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. With multiple voyage-related sibling tools (e.g., 'get_all_voyages', 'get_voyage_profit_and_loss', 'get_voyage_laytime'), the description offers no context about when this specific tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or how it complements other tools in the server.

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