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 no information on traits like read-only vs. destructive operations, authentication needs, rate limits, or expected output format. It fails to describe what the search returns or any constraints, making it inadequate for a tool with unknown behavior.

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, which could be seen as efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized, as it lacks necessary details for a functional tool. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place with useful 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's complexity (a search function with one parameter), absence of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not provide enough context for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively, missing critical details on behavior, parameters, and results.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, with one required parameter 'charterer_name' undocumented. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a charterer name entails, format expectations, or search behavior. This leaves the parameter semantics unclear, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Search charterer contacts' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'charterer contacts', but lacks detail on what constitutes a charterer contact or the search scope, failing to differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_vessel_fixture_contacts' or 'get_voyage_contacts'.

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. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on its appropriate application compared to other contact-related tools in the sibling list.

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