Marlo MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'List all global accounts' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it returns all accounts at once or uses pagination, what format the output takes, or any authentication requirements. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'List all global accounts'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. This is appropriately concise for a simple listing tool with no parameters.

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 (a listing tool with no parameters but no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'global accounts' are, what data is returned, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. For a tool in a context with many similar siblings, more detail is needed to ensure correct usage.

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, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce confusion about inputs.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'List all global accounts', which clearly indicates it retrieves account information. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes a 'global account' or differentiate this from similar sibling tools like 'list_all_bank_accounts' or 'get_global_account_currency_balance', leaving the scope somewhat vague.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that also retrieve account-related data (e.g., 'list_all_bank_accounts', 'get_global_account_currency_balance'), there's no indication of whether this tool is for a specific type of account, a comprehensive list, or how it differs from other listing tools.

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