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 offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether results are paginated, what format they're returned in, or any rate limits or constraints. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While there's no wasted text, the description fails to provide the minimal necessary context for effective tool selection and use.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what credit notes are in this domain, what data is returned, whether there are any constraints or prerequisites, or how this differs from related tools. The agent would be operating with insufficient information to use this 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and 'list all credit notes' appropriately implies no filtering parameters are required. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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 credit notes' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'credit notes' are in this context, what format they're returned in, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get_credit_note_details' or 'list_all_vendor_credits'.

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 'get_credit_note_details' (likely for specific notes) and 'list_all_vendor_credits' (potentially overlapping domain), the agent has no indication of when this particular listing tool is appropriate.

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