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 the response format might be, or any rate limits. For a tool with 10 parameters that presumably queries financial data, this lack of behavioral context is a critical gap.

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 maximally concise at just three words, with no wasted language. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the description is perfectly structured in being front-loaded with the core function. Every word earns its place, even if that place is insufficient for proper tool understanding.

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 (10 parameters, 1 required), complete lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret parameters, behavioral characteristics, or differentiation from similar tools. For a financial data query tool, this minimal description fails to provide necessary context.

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 description provides zero information about any of the 10 parameters, despite 0% schema description coverage. With parameters like 'bank_id', 'status', 'date_range', 'amount_min/max', 'base_type', 'search', 'currency_code', 'page', and 'per_page', the description doesn't explain what these mean, their formats, or how they affect the listing. This leaves all parameter semantics undocumented.

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 'list all bank transactions' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_all_transactions' or clarify what 'all' means in context. The description lacks a clear verb+resource combination that explains what makes this tool unique.

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. With sibling tools like 'list_all_transactions' and 'list_all_bank_accounts' available, there's no indication of when this specific bank transaction listing tool is appropriate versus other listing tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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