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 for behavioral disclosure. 'list all lendors' gives no information about whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what the return format looks like, whether there are rate limits, or how pagination works. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 3 words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient communication. It's front-loaded in the sense that there's nothing to structure, but it fails to convey necessary information.

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 tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. For a list operation with pagination and search capabilities, the description should explain what 'lendors' are in this context, how results are returned, and basic usage patterns. The current description provides none of this essential 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 mentions no parameters at all, while the schema has 3 parameters (page, per_page, search) with 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't compensate for this gap - it doesn't explain that this is a paginated endpoint, that search functionality exists, or what the default pagination values are. The agent would have to infer parameter usage from the schema alone.

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 lendors' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what 'lendors' are in this domain (likely lenders in a financial/loan context) or what specific data is returned. While the verb 'list' is clear, the resource 'lendors' is ambiguous without domain explanation.

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 multiple sibling tools like 'get_all_borrowers_summary_for_lender', 'get_customer_details', and other list_* tools, there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's the appropriate choice. No context about filtering, scoping, or prerequisites is mentioned.

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