Marlo MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it fails to do so. It doesn't indicate if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, if there are rate limits, pagination, or what the output format might be, leaving critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 with just three words, but this brevity leads to under-specification rather than efficiency. It's front-loaded but lacks necessary detail, making it more sparse than helpful, though it avoids redundancy.

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 and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'transactions' means in this context, the return format, or any behavioral constraints, failing to provide enough information for effective tool use.

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 no parameter information is needed in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, though it could theoretically add context about implicit filters.

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 transactions' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of transactions (financial, shipping, etc.) or what scope 'all' entails, making it vague compared to sibling tools like 'list_all_bank_transactions' or 'list_approval_transactions' which provide more context.

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 sibling tools like 'list_all_bank_transactions' and 'list_approval_transactions' that might overlap, the description offers no differentiation, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage context.

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